WRITTEN QUESTION No. 772/96 by Frode KRISTOFFERSEN to the Commission. Implementation of Directive 92/29/EEC on minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels
Date: 1996-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, KRISTOFFERSEN
Subjects: cost-benefit analysis, crew, female work, medical device, medicinal product, vessel













EUR-Lex - 91996E0772 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0772

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 772/96 by Frode KRISTOFFERSEN to the Commission. Implementation of Directive 92/29/EEC on minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0078 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0772/96 by Frode Kristoffersen (PPE) to the Commission (1 April 1996)Subject: Implementation of Directive 92/29/EEC on minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vesselsCouncil Directive 92/29/EEC ((OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p.19. )) of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels requires that very extensive medical supplies to be carried at all times. The latter are highly expensive and in fact can only be properly used by persons with medical training. These onerous requirements also apply to commercial fishermen at sea for relatively short periods and within restricted geographical areas from which they may be evacuated by rescue helicopter in the event of serious accident. They include the Danish fishing fleet, which mainly operates in the North Sea and the Baltic and is therefore never going to use any of the many expensive and highly specialized medicines described in the annexes to the Directive, such as uterotonics for use after childbirth. The provisions of the directive are therefore regarded not only by the fishermen affected but also by the general public as an example of the excessive bureaucracy and perfectionism which has recently brought the EU institutions into disrepute.Will the Commission therefore review Directive 92/29/EEC with a view to adapting it, as it so obviously needs, to the real world, and can the Commission quote examples of fisherwomen who have been obliged to give birth at the workplace?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1996)Evacuation by helicopter, which is inevitably very costly, is not always possible owing to the weather. Vessels must therefore have medical supplies on board. The Commission drew up its proposal on the basis of recommendations made by medical staff of services providing radio assistance to vessels at sea. Neither this proposal nor the amended proposal included uterotonics. Antihaemorrhagics were required only for vessels sailing more than 100 nautical miles from the nearest port.The Commission points out that the Directive also applies to merchant vessels, which are more likely to have women on board. This is why the Council wanted to take account of problems which might affect women. Uterotonics are prescribed only where there are female crew members on board. The Commission did not express any reservations about this point, as the cost-benefit analysis of its proposal shows the cost of maintaining medical supplies to be very small, compared with that of diverting a vessel or interrupting fishing to evacuate a crew member who cannot be treated on board. The disproportion justifies the requirement for less expensive medicines which are less commonly used, but are shown by medical assistance service statistics to be useful. The uterotonic recommended by several Member States in France costs around ECU 2.2 in injectable form and less than ECU 4 in the form taken orally. Under these circumstances there are no grounds for a review of the directive in respect of medical supplies.