Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-04-Speech-3-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021204.10.3-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, the European Parliament has, on a number of occasions, expressed strong feeling about this matter and declared itself to be opposed to the use of laboratory animals when experiments are repeats of experiments which have already been carried out in other technologically advanced countries, when alternative, internationally approved methods exist and when the products in question are not strictly necessary, as in the case of cosmetics.
Directive 86/609 establishes boundaries and standards which the individual countries of the European Union have to respect in order to ensure maximum protection for animals: I hope that these are applied throughout the European Union. We must remember, however, that the people who devote their lives to scientific research are skilled professionals, as are the Commission’s scientific consultants, who are therefore fully aware of this responsibility and perform experiments with the noble aim of eliminating diseases which are still incurable and fatal.
Moreover, we need to acknowledge that, for certain specific purposes, it is still necessary to use subhuman primates today. It is necessary for the purposes of assessing the effectiveness and safety of Aids vaccines – every year, another two million people die – for the production of monoclonal antibody vaccines to fight diseases such as cancer, polio, tuberculosis or malaria, and where there are no alternative methods in existence. To prohibit these types of experiments on primates would be to jeopardise the lives of a great many children and adults, Commissioner, depriving them of drugs and vaccines which are essential for the preservation of their lives.
I have tabled three amendments. I am going to withdraw the second, but Amendments Nos 1 and 3 stand as before. Amendment No 1 is particularly important to me, and I therefore hope that reason will prevail over emotion tomorrow, for No 1 is of fundamental importance for the protection of human health itself. If Amendment No 1 is not adopted, I shall regrettably be forced – as I have already told the rapporteur – to abstain in the final vote."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples