Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-24-Speech-3-202"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|
| rdf:type |
|
| dcterms:Date |
|
| dcterms:Is Part Of |
|
| dcterms:Language |
|
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101124.15.3-202"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent |
|
| lpv:speaker |
|
| lpv:spokenAs |
|
| lpv:translated text |
"I voted against this report, to which I have always expressed my strong opposition. While I approve of the idea of providing better information to patients, I disapprove of the means used to do so. The pharmaceutical industry’s goal will never be one of philanthropy. Moreover, there is a very fine line between information and advertising. It is true that the text, which was adopted almost unanimously, has nothing to do with the Commission’s initial idea. The latter would have simply opened the door to advertising disguised under the label ‘Information’. That proposal corresponded, moreover, to the pharmaceutical sector’s clear expectation of being able to get out of the legal ban on advertising of medicines. The report, as adopted today, includes many more guarantees: that the information provided by pharmaceutical companies for dissemination will, in particular, be checked beforehand, and will not be disseminated by the media. Nevertheless, the authorisation to publish package leaflet summaries means that there will be items that must be highlighted and others, such as adverse reactions, which may well be regularly excluded from the summaries, as they do not ‘sell’ well. Is that not already a promotional move? Was that really the aim? Was the game really worth the candle?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples
Context graph
