Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-224"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-09-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Human cloning (continuation)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000906.10.3-224"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-09-06-Speech-3-2252
lpv:speaker	lp:Paul A.A.J.G. Lannoye2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Ecolo (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (1999-07-20--2002-01-07)3 chair; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2002-01-07)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, once again we face a fundamental ethical debate on developments in biotechnology as applied to humans. There are two opposing views in play: the first refuses to turn the human being and more specifically the embryo into a tool and is concerned at the potential risks for human society of the widespread use of certain techniques such as cloning. The second view considers that the right of those suffering from serious and hitherto incurable illnesses to be able to benefit from the potential of medical research takes precedence over any other consideration. The British Government, without any prior consultation with other countries – and I emphasise this point – has apparently opted for the second approach, by declaring itself to be in favour of therapeutic cloning. The idea behind this decision is that therapeutic cloning, that is, the cloning of embryonic cells that are undifferentiated from human embryos available for research and production is a promising way forward. Even if this idea is well-founded, it is nonetheless true that this option gives human embryos the status of stock cells for medical use and involves the production of embryos, first for research purposes, and then, probably, for production. I feel that it is extremely important to make two observations at this point. First of all, I would remind you of the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Bio-Medicine, adopted in Oviedo, in April 1997. It is probably fair to criticise this convention for its vagueness on a number of points, but in Article 18, it states quite clearly that the production of human embryos for research purposes is prohibited. There has been consensus on this point throughout Europe until quite recently, but this consensus has just been broken by the position adopted by the government of the United Kingdom. My second observation is that, according to several experts, and as Mr Busquin, Commissioner for Research mentioned earlier, there are other routes open to respond to the legitimate expectations of those who are suffering from serious genetic illnesses. In particular, there are routes that do not require the production of embryos by cloning, but which use adult cells. Why then, given this scenario, should we immediately rush into something that is ethically and socially questionable? To conclude, I believe that the knowledge that has been acquired in gene therapy could be promising for humanity, but that they are also full of potential risks and are open to serious abuse. We therefore need a rigorous legal framework and clear legal guidelines. Upholding the ban on human cloning, rather than establishing it in the first place – I am talking about upholding the ban – is crucial in this respect. Our Parliament has the responsibility of restating this, not by rushing into anything, but simply by remaining consistent with our earlier positions."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph