Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-22-Speech-1-156"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101122.17.1-156"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as the 21st century dawns, patients particularly need appropriate information so that they can be fully involved in the treatment pathway, know where to find treatment, decide on the best treatment with healthcare professionals and follow the planned treatment to the letter.
Nowadays, patients demand independent, comparative information that is tailored to individual needs. Unfortunately, the proposals for the revision of the directive submitted by the European Commission failed to properly meet the needs expressed by European citizens. These proposals opened the door to direct promotion by pharmaceutical companies, which we believe is a nonsense in terms of responding to patients’ real needs.
Neither the public nor the Member States stand to gain from this move. On the contrary, it means more red tape, increased costs and risks to patients.
It is for these reasons that we initially submitted a proposal to reject these texts, thereby requiring the Commission to revise its proposals. This approach, which was also adopted by my fellow Member, Mr Schlyter, of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, enabled our rapporteur, Mr Fjellner – to whom I pay tribute – to undertake a major review of the Commission’s proposals.
At the same time, we tabled some 60 amendments with the aim of better protecting the health of our citizens and of facilitating patient access to independent, comparative information tailored to individual needs. The adoption of these amendments by the Committee on the Environment meant that we could place more emphasis on patients’ rights to information, rather than make it an option for the pharmaceutical industries to provide that information.
In light of the compromise amendments reached, and given the positive changes made to the substance of the text over recent months, we have decided to withdraw our proposal to reject the texts. The draft report, as amended, has succeeded in counterbalancing the European Commission’s initial proposals.
Nevertheless, we shall continue to speak out against health professionals being used to distribute to their patients brochures and information that have been supplied by pharmaceutical companies without any checks by health authorities. Similarly, we will oppose the authorisation of industrial campaigns, especially information campaigns, in relation to vaccines.
Information must not be freely distributed by pharmaceutical companies. Experience shows that we must be very vigilant – and what happened with the Mediator medicinal products shows, in fact, just how vigilant we must be – and make sure that we strike a balance, as we have sought to do with this draft report."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples