Home page > Europe > The Commission > DG SANCO > Commissioner Byrne debates public (...)

On Thursday 15 July 2004 European Commissioner David Byrne launched an informal consultation process on how the EU can best contribute to raising health perspectives across the Union.

What value added can be brought by cooperating at EU level? This can range from combating common threats to health (communicable diseases...), patient mobility, facilitating cooperation between health systems, benchmarking, best practices etc. The economic impact and cost of health is now higher on political agendas. How should the value of good health be factored into public policies? Commissioner Byrne wishes to launch a wide reflection on the future directions health policy should take at EU level.

The debate was hosted by the European Policy Centre and was held at Residence Palace (Polak Room) 155 Rue de la Loi, 1040 Brussels.

EPHA members can read the report of the meeting here: "DG SANCO announces consultation on EU Health Strategy".

A compilation of responses to the consultation can be found here.

Last modified on October 18 2004.

Your feedback is valuable to us!

Was this article interesting and relevant for you? Do you have any comments?

1 Message

Our readers have published these comments:

9 February 2005 14:20, by Sergio Stagnaro MD.

> Commissioner Byrne debates public health in Europe

Single Patient Based Medicine: its paramount role in Future’s Medicine. For the first time, I communicated with my colleagues the existance of Single Patient Based Medicine (SPBM) by a Rapid Response to BMJ.com, in May 2003, (“Single Patient Based Medicine” versus EBM. http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1048#32299 Sergio Stagnaro, 16 May 2003), cited also in the website “Planning for the EU public Health Portal” at the URL: http://www.google.it/search?q=cache:U5A-DtWmRDsJ:europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_information/documents/ev_20030710_co01_en .pdf+single+patient+based+medicine+and+stagnaro&hl=it&ie=UTF-8 Pg 36, underlying its usefulness when utilized in association with the well-known EBM. Really, in the majority of my pubblications, in both internet and paper reviews, such as theory was implicit from both epistemological and practical view-point (See Bibliography in the web site HONCode 233736, www.semeioticabiofisica.it/semeioticabiofisica: Biophysical Semeiotic Constitutions, SPBM). In fact, the original definition of a large number of biophysical-semeiotic constitutions, pre-metabolic syndrome, and all clinical refined method of investigation, based on this original physical semeiotics, account for the reason SPBM fundation was a really easy event. When a patient present to doctor in order to be investigated and helped with therapy, first of all, doctor must define precisely the biological situations of such as individual. In other words, healing physician must firstly answer the following question: “What kind of patient is this?” (1, 2, 3). From biophysical-semeiotic view-point, doctor must firstly recognize at the bed side all numerous described constitutions, possibly present in that subject, and secondly “real risks” of the most common and severe human diseases, in relation to precise biological system and severity of the same real risk. In fact, e.g., if a subject is not involved by Oncological Terrain, i.e. oncological sonstitution (See in above-cited web site, URL: http://digilander.libero.it/semeioticabiofisica/oncologico.htm; http://digilander.libero.it/semeioticabiofisica/Oncogenesi.htm) is purely acądemic discussion to consider malignancy among other diagnoses, spending money and time for useless diagnostic iter. In addition, even in presence of oncological terrain (predisposition), a biological system can be not necessarily involved by “real risk” of cancer: for instance, breasts of woman with oncological terrain can be perfectly normal. In other words, a woman with oncological terrain does not necessarily be at risk of breast cancer, if her mamma glands are free from oncological “real risk”, conditio sine qua non of breast cancer. It follows that, with the aid of Biophysical Semeiotics (4), thanks to SPBM, the diagnostic procedure is more quick, reliable, and precise, treatment is rationally personalized, and finally therapeutic monitoring is really objective, making prognosis more correct.

References.

1) Stagnaro S.-Neri M., Stagnaro S. Sindrome di Reaven, classica e variante, in evoluzione diabetica. Il ruolo della Carnitina nella prevenzione del diabete mellito. Il Cuore. 6, 617, 1993 (Medline) 2) Stagnaro-Neri M., Stagnaro S. La “Costituzione Colelitiasica”: ICAEM-a, Sindrome di Reaven variante e Ipotonia-Ipocinesia delle vie biliari. Atti. XII Settim. It. Dietol. ed Epatol. 20, 239, 1993. 3) Stagnaro S., Stagnaro-Neri M., Le Costituzioni Semeiotico-Biofisiche.Strumento clinico fondamentale per la prevenzione primaria e la definizione della Single Patient Based Medicine. Ediz. Travel Factory, Roma, 2004. http://www.travelfactory.it/semeiotica_biofisica.htm 4) Stagnaro Sergio, Stagnaro-Neri Marina. Introduzione alla Semeiotica Biofisica. Il Terreno oncologico”. Travel Factory SRL., Roma, 2004. 5) Stagnaro S., Stagnaro-Neri M., Single Patient Based Medicine.La Medicina Basata sul Singolo Paziente: Nuove Indicazioni della Melatonina. Travel Factory SRL., Roma, (in press). http://www.travelfactory.it/semeiotica_biofisica.htm

See online : Single Patient Based Medicine.

Reply to this message