Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-29-Speech-4-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011129.1.4-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the ethical dimension of this debate is crucial, but we must not stop there: we must also discuss power. Who has the final say over the human body? The bio-patent directive regulates that power. Unfortunately this directive is not completely transparent. The opportunities for patents are formulated in overly broad terms and, as a result, power shifts one-sidedly to the big patent-holders. We must provide a counterweight.
In the first place, we must subject the directive to a thorough evaluation of its socio-economic consequences, and, if necessary, propose an amendment.
Secondly, we must ensure that pharmaceutical companies communicate with the public. There must be public influence on a research agenda. What do we want to know, what can we know and who is allowed to know what we know?
Thirdly, we must make sure that gene therapy remains accessible to all. Gene therapy is so costly for the time being and that may threaten accessibility.
Fourthly, we must ask ourselves what the results of the medical revolution are: we are living longer, we are becoming more individual, we are banishing ailments, and all that has consequences for human relationships, for the labour market and for health care.
Finally, we must draw up a public research agenda, which we must not allow to be delimited by artificial, ethical boundaries. We must move from a narrow ethics based on orthodox religion to a broadly based social ethics.
The sixth framework programme plays an essential part in this, but cooperation between national public institutions is at least as important."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples