Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-13-Speech-4-041"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030213.3.4-041"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, every year, tens of thousands of women undergo surgery for the insertion of at least one breast implant. In Belgium alone over the past ten years, over 4 000 prosthetic implants were inserted, with, in 1999, 313 women needing hospital in-patient treatment because of complications.
So there are at least three reasons to justify this action being taken at Community level: improving information for patients in certain cases; shedding the maximum possible light on the potential secondary effects of having a breast implant, in particular by means of research; and, of course, taking into account the petitions presented by citizens' groups, giving consideration to whether or not their request that silicon implants of this sort be subject to an immediate ban is well founded. These three aspirations are set out clearly by Mrs Stihler, whom also I wish to congratulate, in her report, the broad outlines of which the Liberal Group endorses. I am thinking especially of the prohibition of advertising aimed directly at the public, and of the authorisation of prosthetic implants for young women under the age of 18, strictly and solely for medical reasons.
The Liberal Group does not, however, support all the measures advocated by this report, specifically mandatory entry in national registers, or Amendment No 3, which proposes the introduction of a passport for wearers of implants, which strike us as being like so many ideas which appear to be good but turn out to be misguided. Over and above that, primarily, where the cost and feasibility of such interventions is concerned, should we be contemplating the imposition of requirements that go well beyond those in place for other equally invasive and extensive surgery? I am thinking, for example, of heart surgery, the requirements imposed on which by the Commission are sufficiently restrictive.
In conclusion, Mr President, what women expect is clear answers to issues that frequently cause them anguish or even traumatise them, when raised in the event of an illness. It is self-evident that what we owe them is the truth, and the truth is not about imposing a ban that risks simply sending these women across our European borders. The Liberals therefore give their active support to Amendment No 2 tabled by the Group of the Party of European Socialists. The truth is that women tempted to undergo this sort of operation which – as has been said – is becoming increasingly common, need to be informed and protected, and that is what we have tried to do."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples