Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-11-Speech-3-441"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090311.39.3-441"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I should like to endorse much of what Mr Bowis said a moment ago. The Green Paper we received from you, Commissioner, is a fine document. Needless to say, we cannot wait for the reactions to it, as is always the case with a Green Paper. These are, of course, partly predictable, but it is, in any event, useful to receive these, so that they can be incorporated in possible future legislation.
If better cooperation in the area of organ donation and effective cooperation in the protection of pandemics – something I always bring up – are not addressed at European level, I am convinced that we will be faced with major problems if, some time in the future, a flu epidemic travels our way from Thailand. In actual fact, the Commission should, in those cases, be able to take crisis measures within 24 hours.
Finally, Article 152 is, to my mind, not up to standard after all when it comes to organising effective European action in future. If we were to consider changing the Treaty at some point in the distant future, we should, in my view, consider extending the legal basis for public health in a new Treaty.
This Green Paper is important, seeing as it concerns a matter that needs to be dealt with. The Green Paper is the result of a controversy that arose over the proposals submitted by Mr Bolkestein at the time, and we welcome the fact that the Commission handles it in this way, with due care, with a Green Paper, and with ample room for debate, because there is, above all, much anxiety surrounding this issue, in my view. This is why I do not want to confine my contribution to the topic of health workers alone, because I think that we will discover the same fear of the unknown in the European dimension in healthcare in other areas too.
Much has been done in recent years in the area of public health in the European Union, both under your predecessors and with you, Commissioner; I should therefore like to seize the opportunity to congratulate you, Commissioner, on the stamp which you managed to place on this policy in a relatively short space of time. I did not think it possible in such a short space of time, and I think that we can all be proud of the way you managed to achieve this.
A great deal has been achieved in recent years, for example in the area of drugs for paediatric use, a matter in which respect the public is not even aware that there is a problem, but where a European solution is very much on the agenda, because Member States cannot resolve this on their own. It is precisely the economies of scale that come into their own here. I take the view that this also applies to other areas: to the policy on tobacco and discouraging smoking, for example, where the European Union leads the way, not only in the Union, but also beyond. In this instance too, it is precisely the economies of scale that make us effective. We are also very involved in cross-border care and the protection of patients’ rights in Europe, also under the watchful eye of rapporteur Mr Bowis, and I hope and expect that we will achieve a positive result in that area too.
Each time, though, with each topic that is discussed, you notice that not only ministers, but also fellow MPs in national parliaments, are reluctant to further deepen European cooperation in the area of healthcare. With 27 different systems in the European Union, we are all convinced that our own healthcare model is the best. Anyone you talk to will convince you that their system stands out. This is, of course, impossible. You cannot have 27 different systems that are all the best all at the same time.
Needless to say, a great deal of thought has gone into such a system in each country. In each case, people and well-intended interests are involved. When finally a difficult balance is struck, the European Union suddenly comes storming in with an idea that we happen to think is the best. I can understand very well that this will meet with resistance.
In a few areas, however, precisely these economies of scale – for example, in the case of rare diseases – can benefit the patients and systems alike. There are plenty of reasons for more European involvement in the area of public health. Nearly 40 000 patients in Europe are waiting for organs, and every day, nearly ten people on these waiting lists die.
Every year, alcohol abuse claims 195 000 lives and costs the European economy EUR 125 billion. This is a matter that is probably best tackled not even nationally, but locally. There are also European trends, though, for example in the case of alcohol abuse among young people. We have to examine whether this should not be better addressed at European level after all. We are, however, being stretched on the basis of the present Treaty texts to tackle these problems.
We should nevertheless achieve more, for example – and this is where the value of a Green Paper lies – where the actual free movement of health services is concerned. I am convinced that if we faced up to all the problems, because there certainly are some, and came up with solutions, for example, to prevent medical blunders, or to enhance the legal certainty of patients, but also that of health workers, that eventually everyone would benefit, provided this free movement is organised in a responsible manner but becomes possible nonetheless."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples