Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-17-Speech-1-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031117.6.1-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, is the European Union going to finance research involving human embryos, yes or no? That is the crucial question.
The essence of this topic is not so much monetary, as it is ethical – a discussion about good and bad. It is not so much about whether funding is good or bad, but about whether this research is good or bad
. That is what this is really about.
When we debate the funding of stem cell research, why can we not simply state the fact that in many Member States, this research is not permitted, and that, consequently, we should not use Community funding in those countries? What is wrong with this logic? If it is not done in some Member States, fine, but it is a punishable offence in a number of others. How can we ask Member States to contribute to research to which they have fundamental objections? Surely that is a slap in the face for those EU partners?
I am in favour of stem cell research. I consider it our duty to look for therapies for diseases that are still considered incurable. I am also in favour of the EU setting aside funds for this. However, and this is where, in my view, the issue of ethics comes in, this research should not be at the expense of other human life. Human life, at whatever stage of development, should never be used in a merely instrumental manner.
The Commission proposal should therefore be rejected, not only because of the considerations of criminal law within the EU and of the destruction of human life, but also because it is not consistent with what has previously been agreed. The Council Minutes specify that the Commission will table a proposal in which further 'guidelines' are given for the decision-making principles concerning Community funding of research projects that involve human embryos and human embryonic stem cells. The proposal should therefore be about 'guidelines for principles for funding'. However, the Commission proposal is about 'conditions for funding'. That is quite different from 'guidelines for principles of funding'!
A principle could, for example, be: no European funds for research that leads to the destruction of human life. Another example of a principle is: in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, no funds for research that is prohibited in certain Member States. Another example from my Amendment 55: no funds for ethically objectionable research if less objectionable alternatives are available.
Although the Commission claims otherwise, there are most definitely alternatives in the issue of stem cell research, namely research involving human somatic stem cells (so-called adult stem cells). A research report was recently published on this topic by the Dutch Lindeboom Institute, in cooperation with the Israeli Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem. According to this report, which makes reference to dozens of scientific publications, the most recent scientific developments involving adult stem cells offer a wide range of possibilities for therapies of degenerative diseases that do not rely on research that involves the destruction of human embryos. These developments, I quote, ‘seem to indicate that embryonic stem cells are not essential for medical progress’. There are therefore alternatives to destroying human embryos.
Finally, if this Parliament refuses to concentrate on the funding of only adult stem cell research, the Liese report’s approach still deserves a great deal of support. I would quote Amendment 61 to illustrate my point."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples