Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-22-Speech-1-175"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101122.17.1-175"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"It is indeed gratifying to see such a level of positive engagement on such an important file and the general agreement that there is on the trust that has been placed in the basic principles and concepts on which this proposal should be moving forward.
(– C6-0156/2008 –)
Amendments:
(– C6-0517/2008 –)
Amendments:
As I stated earlier, it was very important that we shift the focus of the original proposal into a patient-orientated proposal based on the patient’s perspective.
I have been following the debate in Parliament very assiduously. I have talked to many of you to see what is being talked about, and I believe that what we have – as I stated in my original comments – is a very positive document on which we should be now building in order to come to a final agreement.
I would like to make some short comments on what you have said. Concerning the ex-ante controls by EMA mentioned by Mr Correia, I believe that 120 days would be somewhat excessive and, in fact, what we will be proposing will be in the region of 60 days.
The Internet is a daunting task, and controlling websites containing information for patients is vital – but we all understand that it is also difficult. The points raised by Mr Buşoi and Ms Grossetête concerning strict rules covering the Internet is very important, and this is what we should be developing.
The focal point which the doctor needs to continue to have in the relationship with the patient is also very important, as stated by Mr Schnellhardt and also, in their own ways, by Mr Pargneaux and Mr Parvanova.
I agree that doctors should not be instrumentalised by the pharmaceutical industry but, on the other hand, a doctor should be a good medium through which information should flow. Here, we must ensure that information in the hands of doctors, as Mrs Rosbach has stated, should also be objective.
My last point regards the comprehensive portal on diseases, which was mentioned by Mrs Weisgerber. I have to say that, in the case of medicines, this is already covered by the pharmacovigilance legislation that we are proposing. It is somewhat more difficult in the case of diseases. We already have a portal on rare diseases, but in the case of the overall spectrum of diseases, we have started and are attempting to tackle this issue. However, it is proving to be a very complex and, as you will understand, an extremely extensive exercise.
So I would like to thank you for the work that has been done on this dossier. I would like to thank the rapporteur and the co-rapporteurs again for the work that they have done, and I hope, as I said, that finally, we will have a document on which we can work further."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Acceptable in principle: 6"1
"Acceptable in principle: 9, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 32, 34, 36, 37, 41, 46, 48, 50, 52, 58, 62, 66, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77 and 78."1
"Acceptable subject to rewording: 1"1
"Acceptable subject to rewording: 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 24, 25, 28, 33, 44, 49, 53, 59 and 70."1
"Acceptable: 2 and 7"1
"Commission's position on the amendments tabled by the Parliament:"1
"Directly acceptable: 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 22, 26, 35, 39, 40, 42, 56, 60, 63, 64, 65, 67 and 69"1
"NOT acceptable: 17, 18, 30, 38, 45, 47, 51, 57, 68, 71 and 73"1
"NOT acceptable: 3, 4, 5, 8 and 11"1
"Partly acceptable: 2, 29, 31, 43, 54, 55, 61 and 79."1
"Partly acceptable: 9, 10 and 12"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples