Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-431"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-09-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Quality and safety standards for human blood and blood components2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010905.15.3-431"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-09-05-Speech-3-4322
lpv:speaker	lp:Eija-Riitta Korhola2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Suomen kristillisdemokraatit rp (2001-05-30--2004-07-19)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the dispute in connection with Mr Nisticò’s excellent report regarding the remuneration of blood donors is important in terms of its multidimensional, ethical and practical aspects, and a lot more serious than might be inferred from the debate. I tabled an amendment regarding the non-remuneration of donor services together with my colleague, Mrs Grossetête, and the committee adopted it. I appeal to my colleagues to maintain this position now also. Various patient groups and authorities have appealed to us here in Parliament not to allow blood donation to become commercialised. Firstly there is a safety risk. Allowing remuneration will mean the donor profile will change and the overall risk increase: comparative studies show that the state of health of remunerated donors is poorer. The importance of tests has been emphasised here, and that is good. But with HIV tests, for example, there is a certain window period, as it is known, when the virus still does not show up. There is also an ethical risk. I want to stress that we also have a responsibility for how the rest of the world might imitate our practices. If we permit the trade in what is part of the human body, i.e. blood, we have to remember that the less developed countries will follow Europe’s example. This will not only lead to exploitation but increased risks. We already know of a case in China where an absolute catastrophe related to blood quality occurred when blood donors were paid what were for them vast sums of money. In Austria 200 schillings is a nominal amount for the donor, but in Eastern Europe it is a considerable income. Is this what we really want for others and ourselves? Thirdly, there is the risk of being guilty of inconsistency. Many EU countries have signed the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, which categorically prohibits the financial exploitation of the human body and its parts, including blood. I do not dispute the need for plasma, and its shortage is very much a reality. It is nevertheless intellectually dishonest to open up this whole area to market forces just because there is a shortage of plasma. Amendment No 17, however, makes adequate guarantees regarding the possibility of reimbursing costs incurred in donating plasma including travel expenses, and of offering compensation for lost working time. At the same time I would like to ask my colleagues to support the oral amendment I intend to propose for Amendment No 43. It would allow exceptions to be made in cases where the plasma shortage really is an insurmountable problem."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph