Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-22-Speech-1-151"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101122.17.1-151"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at last, we have come to the plenary debate on the new legislation on information on medicinal products. What we are about to debate is the last part of what certain people are calling the most controversial issue in the medicinal products package, namely, information on medicinal products. I will admit that as recently as a year ago, I probably would never have believed that we would come to plenary together in as much agreement as we have nevertheless achieved here in Parliament. The fact that this is the case is largely down to my shadow rapporteurs. It is their constructive proposals and their willingness to compromise that has helped us to reach agreement and hopefully adopt this report with considerable support in plenary.
It is not only a question of willingness to compromise. I think that perhaps it is even more important that we have realised that we want, and are working for, the same things here in Parliament. The first is that we all, first and foremost, want Europe’s patients to have better and more accessible information on medicinal products. The second is that none of us wants advertising for prescription-only medicinal products, and the third is that the information that reaches patients and is disseminated by companies must be checked and approved by the relevant authorities. These are principles that everyone shares and that have made it easier for us to reach agreement. However, it is also why we felt somewhat compelled to re-draft the Commission’s proposal.
I would like to highlight five things that we focused on when re-drafting the Commission’s original legislative proposal. The first is that we tried to change the perspective of the legislation – from a focus on the right of pharmaceutical companies to disseminate information to now focusing on the right of patients to have access to information and, with that, the companies’ obligation to publish and make available this information. Secondly, we tried to tighten up all of the exceptions that existed to avoid possible loopholes for advertising – something none of us wants. Thirdly, we ensured that the information on medicinal products coming from companies is checked and is reliable in that it must have passed through a pharmaceuticals authority somewhere. The fourth thing we did was to say that any information that could come from pharmaceutical companies should not be received by patients or the general public without them asking for it first. No one should ever receive unsolicited information on medicinal products. We have therefore rejected any so-called ‘push channels’, such as advertisements on the radio, television or in newspapers. The last point I would like to highlight is that companies are only one link in the information chain. Healthcare and society in many countries throughout Europe must take a much greater share of the responsibility than they currently do.
There are points on which we do not agree. In this regard, I would simply like to ask a question and call on my fellow Members to in fact accept the exception relating to information that doctors give to patients they are treating, in other words, that such information need not go through the same process of checks as other information. I have a specific example that could pose a problem if such an exception is not accepted, namely that a doctor in Sweden, for example, would not be able to give an English package leaflet to a patient who does not understand Swedish on account of the fact that it could never be approved in Sweden, as English is not an official language there.
I will conclude by addressing the Council, which, unfortunately, is not here – something that has been quite telling in this matter. I regret the absence of the Council. I really wanted to take account of the Council’s opinions and arguments in order to facilitate the debate, but as yet I have been met almost entirely by a flat refusal. It has been difficult to listen to someone who does not provide any information.
We have succeeded in reaching agreement on this matter. I am certain that the Council, too, if it begins to discuss this matter in detail, will actually encounter more or less the same conditions for agreement as we have created here. However, the Council must not try to ration information in order to save money. That is not something that we want to encounter. We do not believe that more poorly informed patients are in any way easier to deal with or that it is cheaper to withhold information. I call on the Council to take the baton so that, together, we can ensure that Europe has better information on medicinal products for the sake of the patients."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples