Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-05-18-Speech-2-350"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100518.31.2-350"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, tomorrow we are expecting to have this directive on organ donation and transplantation, which is essential. In Europe, some 60 000 patients awaiting a heart, lung, liver or kidney have been waiting for this law for years. Twelve of them die every day because they have waited too long.
Like those who spoke earlier, I would like to stress the excellent result that we have achieved, which would not have been possible without cooperation between our rapporteurs, Mr Perello Rodriguez and Mr Mikolášik, the shadow rapporteurs, of whom I am one, and the Spanish Presidency. I would like to take this opportunity to praise Dr Matesanz, who was our excellent guide during our visit to Madrid.
Let us not mistake the objective here. The main priority is indeed to increase the number of organ donations in Europe and, therefore, of course, at the same time, to make European men and women more aware of donation, as the disparities speak for themselves, they are quite blatant: there are 34 deceased donors per million inhabitants in Spain, 27 in my country, Belgium, and just one single donor in Romania. Therefore, we also have to educate people about this issue of donation; enable potential donors to access information; break down administrative barriers, which is essential; establish throughout the 27 Member States a national authority in charge of controlling the quality and safety of organs, from extraction from the donor to transplantation; and then also inspire – as has been said – better examples of organisation, such as exist, once again, in Spain, where progress is linked to a kind of early warning system, a constant warning throughout the chain, from the death of the donor to transplantation.
Our directive’s compromise, our famous Amendment 106, which sums up all our efforts, sends out the right message to patients, the message of hope, by authorising – and this was sometimes at the end of very in-depth discussions – the use of a non-optimal organ in cases of extreme urgency, especially by encouraging living donations, where this is possible of course. Here I am essentially talking about kidney or liver donations, donations which are necessary, which are fast expanding, which are encouraged by practitioners and specialists, and which, at the moment, still only account, on average, for 5% of donations.
Do more and cooperate more: that is the rationale behind the action plan that has been guided by Mr Perello Rodriguez. One example is my proposal for online enrolment in a register, in a national or a European donor register, with the idea of adding a reference to a person’s identity card or driving licence identifying him as a donor and therefore allowing matters to proceed more swiftly, where necessary.
I would just like to sum up for a second by saying that we have done an excellent job and that we preferred the ethics of hope to the ethics of prohibition."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples