You have not yet responded to the forum.

Here you will find the last 3 forum topics
you have posted a comment on.
+ add shout
Klavier
can u keep telling me this every day
0 | 0 | 0 | 0
0%
To react to the daily news you need to be logged in.

Click here to register your own account for free and I will personally explain to you how you can start getting your own fans and, making popdollars.
> Close
Helper
Game statistics
Daily news
Competitions
Game Explanation
FAQ page
10 of the 24 stars earned
Daily news
Equality for blood donators (by Private)

Homosexual and other people in the LGBT community have been discriminated for their sexual orientation for centuries. The LGBT+ community has in many countries got it better throughout the years, but even in the most equal countries we yet haven’t reached full equality between heterosexual and homosexual/bisexual people. Such a simple thing as donating blood isn’t even equal for everyone and I’m going to talk about a couple of different countries and their laws when it comes to homosexual and bisexual people and donating blood. At the end of the article, I’m going to let you know what you can do to let your government know that you want to see a change in your country!

Finland allows homosexual and bisexual men to donate blood if they haven’t had any sexual interactions for a year. If a woman has sex with a bisexual man who recently has had sex with another man then the woman isn’t allowed to donate blood for a year either.

As some of you might know I’m a bit political involved and therefore I would like to promote a campaign the Swedish Social Democratic youth group (Swedish: SSU, Sveriges socialdemokratiska ungdomsförbund) is currently running. Their campaign called “Bloody serious” (Swedish: “Blodigt allvar”) is a campaign whose goal is to get the government's attention so they will change the law about blood donation. Homosexual and bisexual men are allowed to donate blood as long as they have had a 1 year deferral period when they are not allowed to have sex with their partner. This basically means that homosexual and bisexual men are not able to donate blood or they are not allowed to have a sex life, that’s a really discriminating law. It’s also a really stupid law since hospitals all over Sweden doesn’t have enough blood to help all of those who would need it! 

It takes 6-8 weeks for an HIV test to show if a person is HIV positive or not. Blood is, also, undergoing a lot of tests before being used for transplantation which means the chances that any type of blood disease, such as HIV, would be in the blood they use for transplantation is rather minimalistic. Which means that the most logical thing would be to allow homosexual and bisexual men to donate blood the same as everyone else is allowed to. 

If you live in Sweden and want the law in Sweden to change then make sure to sign this petition!




Place reaction

Comment on the article Equality for blood donators.
Place message
Report | Quote | X
Mely wrote on 24-09 09:30:
Mely wrote:
 This is a very interesting article,  I didnt knew this was even happening. Its very sad to see that evenbafter all this time the LGBT community gets discrminated with this too. How sad
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 20-09 09:07:
Libertas wrote:
Snakkes wrote:
but how do they know
How do they know that there isn't HIV in the blood?
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 20-09 00:20:
Snakkes wrote:
 but how do they know
Report | Quote | X
Ad0xa wrote on 19-09 18:31:
Ad0xa wrote:
 The subject matter is very important and the layout is amazing!!!!!!!!!
Report | Quote | X
Bloodflowers wrote on 19-09 10:43:
Bloodflowers wrote:
Libertas wrote:
Bloodflowers wrote:
You also have to wait a year if you had sex for money, schizophrenic/psychotic people are not allowed to give blood. Im also rlly curious about the weight requirement since i thought u looked at bmi to see if someone is a healthy weight, with height
About the weight; I read during my research that around 50kg is the minimum a person donating blood is allowed to weight. 
I know and as i said someone under that doesnt have to be underweight it all depends on your height.
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 19-09 10:38:
Libertas wrote:
Bloodflowers wrote:
You also have to wait a year if you had sex for money, schizophrenic/psychotic people are not allowed to give blood. Im also rlly curious about the weight requirement since i thought u looked at bmi to see if someone is a healthy weight, with height
About the weight; I read during my research that around 50kg is the minimum a person donating blood is allowed to weight. 
Report | Quote | X
Bloodflowers wrote on 19-09 10:29:
Bloodflowers wrote:
 You also have to wait a year if you had sex for money, schizophrenic/psychotic people are not allowed to give blood. Im also rlly curious about the weight requirement since i thought u looked at bmi to see if someone is a healthy weight, with height
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 19-09 08:59:
Libertas wrote:
Vig wrote:
Libertas wrote:
Vig wrote:
Idk why it double posted my old response (?)
Because of the discovery of how HIV was linked to men who have partaken in sexual actives with other men, there was also a link in regard to non-homosexual people also contracting HIV from blood banking facilities back in the 80’s. I am finishing up my med tech program, have studied Blood banking, and have already finished my clinical trial at the hospital I’m training at and we follow the standards written by the FDA & AABB. Because blood banking is one of the most dangerous fields to even work in, everyone has to be extremely careful when it comes to transfusing blood to already immunocompromised patients & patients with certain disorders. And if letting a donor who should permanently be deferred for the risk of possibly being exposed to HIV is considered “discrimination”, then you need to further investigate what HIV actually is. It’s a simple retrovirus that can forever be embedded in your genome and will eventually lead to AIDS. And therefore you cause the risk of the patient to be in even more danger due to this factor.
The thing is, that was the case in 1980 which is 40 years ago. Technology has changed so it’s easier to find out if a person is HIV positive. The system for heterosexual people who just have switched partner needs to wait 3 months being able to donate blood because their system is adjusted to today’s technology meanwhile LGBT system is still the same as it was back in 1980 when the HIV spreading was a much bigger problem. As a homosexual person, I’m much aware of what HIV and AIDS are because I have to get checked after having sex. I have friends who are always on PrEP to try to stay safe from HIV. I don’t know what technology the USA is using in their blood banks but if they are still using the same things they used back in 1980 then it’s time for an update, 2020 is close and we have so much better technology then we did back then. 
Even with Serology testing for checking for HIV ab/ag, I can’t describe in layman’s terms but even with all the high end testing we do in the labs, it’s still a risk for both the donor and receiver if there is possible exposure to HIV. The antibodies take 3 months to develop, but not everyone is at the same level with their immune system. And those who need blood are the most vulnerable group, so putting their lives in even more risk is not an option, because the point of healthcare is to provide safe and effect care for all patients. 
If there is only a 12 month deferral, there is nothing wrong with that. It has been decreased from lifetime to only 1 year. At least it’s not a permanent ban like if you have blood borne parasite infections and have recovered from them, or for example, if you’re traveling to a foreign countyy where malaria is present. There is a deferral places for a reason, and it’s better to be safe, than to kill a person and be “sorry”. And if having sexual activity is that big of a deal, then don’t donate. 
Men who have had sex with another man test themselves often just to be sure they are healthy and with the current laws, even the healthy people aren't allowed to donate blood to those in need. That's discriminating. It takes around a week to get a preliminary result after an HIV test and if you did the test after the observatory time which is 6-8 weeks then you are good. Those who did it before the observatory time gets to redo the test again, just to be sure the result is correct. Nor is HIV limited to only homosexual men, there are heterosexual people who have it too and they still have the same rights to donate blood as any other heterosexual. 

As any other sexuality (except for asexuality) sex is an important part of a functioning love life and relationship. Heterosexual couples have the privilege to donate blood whenever they want even if they had sex the night before. A fully healthy homosexual couple have doesn't have that privilege and can't donate blood even if they are fully healthy. I don't know if you hear how ridiculous it sounds to say "Sorry, I can't have sex tonight. I want to donate blood in a year because the hospitals are begging for more donators".

I don't know what kind of system the USA has with HIV testing since welfare in the states is only to make the richest people (usually men) even richer. In Sweden, where the healthcare is free, it's totally free to test yourself how many times you want. You can even get PrEP for free even if you are testing negative. 
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 19-09 03:02:
Vig wrote:
 I’m just going to end my discussion here. As someone who is going to work in this field, and has already been exposed to the resources out there with testing involving blood and other body fluids, you can do more research as to other guidelines involved with blood banking and the possible consequences to donating blood with possible risk of exposure including the aftermath that involves the patient in previous case studies online. 
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 19-09 02:55:
Vig wrote:
Libertas wrote:
Vig wrote:
Idk why it double posted my old response (?)
Because of the discovery of how HIV was linked to men who have partaken in sexual actives with other men, there was also a link in regard to non-homosexual people also contracting HIV from blood banking facilities back in the 80’s. I am finishing up my med tech program, have studied Blood banking, and have already finished my clinical trial at the hospital I’m training at and we follow the standards written by the FDA & AABB. Because blood banking is one of the most dangerous fields to even work in, everyone has to be extremely careful when it comes to transfusing blood to already immunocompromised patients & patients with certain disorders. And if letting a donor who should permanently be deferred for the risk of possibly being exposed to HIV is considered “discrimination”, then you need to further investigate what HIV actually is. It’s a simple retrovirus that can forever be embedded in your genome and will eventually lead to AIDS. And therefore you cause the risk of the patient to be in even more danger due to this factor.
The thing is, that was the case in 1980 which is 40 years ago. Technology has changed so it’s easier to find out if a person is HIV positive. The system for heterosexual people who just have switched partner needs to wait 3 months being able to donate blood because their system is adjusted to today’s technology meanwhile LGBT system is still the same as it was back in 1980 when the HIV spreading was a much bigger problem. As a homosexual person, I’m much aware of what HIV and AIDS are because I have to get checked after having sex. I have friends who are always on PrEP to try to stay safe from HIV. I don’t know what technology the USA is using in their blood banks but if they are still using the same things they used back in 1980 then it’s time for an update, 2020 is close and we have so much better technology then we did back then. 
Even with Serology testing for checking for HIV ab/ag, I can’t describe in layman’s terms but even with all the high end testing we do in the labs, it’s still a risk for both the donor and receiver if there is possible exposure to HIV. The antibodies take 3 months to develop, but not everyone is at the same level with their immune system. And those who need blood are the most vulnerable group, so putting their lives in even more risk is not an option, because the point of healthcare is to provide safe and effect care for all patients. 
If there is only a 12 month deferral, there is nothing wrong with that. It has been decreased from lifetime to only 1 year. At least it’s not a permanent ban like if you have blood borne parasite infections and have recovered from them, or for example, if you’re traveling to a foreign countyy where malaria is present. There is a deferral places for a reason, and it’s better to be safe, than to kill a person and be “sorry”. And if having sexual activity is that big of a deal, then don’t donate. 
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 19-09 02:40:
Libertas wrote:
Vig wrote:
Idk why it double posted my old response (?)
Because of the discovery of how HIV was linked to men who have partaken in sexual actives with other men, there was also a link in regard to non-homosexual people also contracting HIV from blood banking facilities back in the 80’s. I am finishing up my med tech program, have studied Blood banking, and have already finished my clinical trial at the hospital I’m training at and we follow the standards written by the FDA & AABB. Because blood banking is one of the most dangerous fields to even work in, everyone has to be extremely careful when it comes to transfusing blood to already immunocompromised patients & patients with certain disorders. And if letting a donor who should permanently be deferred for the risk of possibly being exposed to HIV is considered “discrimination”, then you need to further investigate what HIV actually is. It’s a simple retrovirus that can forever be embedded in your genome and will eventually lead to AIDS. And therefore you cause the risk of the patient to be in even more danger due to this factor.
The thing is, that was the case in 1980 which is 40 years ago. Technology has changed so it’s easier to find out if a person is HIV positive. The system for heterosexual people who just have switched partner needs to wait 3 months being able to donate blood because their system is adjusted to today’s technology meanwhile LGBT system is still the same as it was back in 1980 when the HIV spreading was a much bigger problem. As a homosexual person, I’m much aware of what HIV and AIDS are because I have to get checked after having sex. I have friends who are always on PrEP to try to stay safe from HIV. I don’t know what technology the USA is using in their blood banks but if they are still using the same things they used back in 1980 then it’s time for an update, 2020 is close and we have so much better technology then we did back then. 
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 19-09 00:26:
Vig wrote:
 Idk why it double posted my old response (?)
Because of the discovery of how HIV was linked to men who has partaken in sexual actives with other men, there was also a link in regard to non-homosexual people also contracting HIV from blood banking facilities back in the 80’s. I am finishing up my med tech program, have studied Blood banking, and have already finished my clinical trial at the hospital I’m training at and we follow the standards written by the FDA & AABB. Because blood banking is one of the most dangerous fields to even work in, everyone has to be extremely careful when it comes to transfusing blood to already immunocompromised patients & patients with certain disorders. And if letting a donor who should permanently be deferred for the risk of possibly being exposed to HIV is considered “discrimination”, then you need to further investigate what HIV actually is. It’s a simple retrovirus that can forever be embedded into your genome and will eventually lead to AIDS. And therefore you cause the risk of the patient to be in even more danger due to this factor.
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 19:34:
Libertas wrote:
Vig wrote:
Libertas wrote:
Vig wrote:
It’s not discriminatory about homosexuals in blood donation. And in general engaging in sexual activities will defer you from most blood donation facilities. 
During a pretty limited time, yes. Heterosexual people who recently change partner have a deferral period on a few months. 
So do you know the history as to why in the 1980’s this had started?
Things isn't the way it was back then but, please, educate me.
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 19:31:
Vig wrote:
Libertas wrote:
Vig wrote:
It’s not discriminatory about homosexuals in blood donation. And in general engaging in sexual activities will defer you from most blood donation facilities. 
During a pretty limited time, yes. Heterosexual people who recently change partner have a deferral period on a few months. 
So do you know the history as to why in the 1980’s this had started?
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 19:29:
Libertas wrote:
Vig wrote:
It’s not discriminatory about homosexuals in blood donation. And in general engaging in sexual activities will defer you from most blood donation facilities. 
During a pretty limited time, yes. Heterosexual people who recently change partner have a deferral period on a few months. 
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 19:23:
Vig wrote:
 It’s not discriminatory about homosexuals in blood donation. And in general engaging in sexual activities will defer you from most blood donation facilities. 
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 14:34:
Libertas wrote:
Snusmumrikken wrote:
Noo the Norway one isn't 100% right. As a homosexual man you can never give blood again after having had sex with another man.
Oh, do you want to send me the source to that on Discord? <3
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 14:21:
Wug wrote:
 Noo the Norway one isn't 100% right. As a homosexual man you can never give blood again after having had sex with another man.
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 14:18:
Era wrote:
Photosynthesis wrote:
Beautiful layout!! You're really improving Era!! 
Thank you hihihi 
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 13:34:
Libertas wrote:
Helmii wrote:
Helmii wrote:
why does finland have a different font and color of its text ):
allllsoooo sources?
People living in each country + Wikipedia. The things each person from the respective country told me is my primary source.
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 13:31:
Libertas wrote:
Helmii wrote:
why does finland have a different font and color of its text ):
Ah yeah, the box is only showing the Finland text for us when we edit (because of the coding, like all the text is located in the same box) so the only font and colour we can change is the Finland one and the rest is a different font. I can change it all to black though, I didn't even notice that it wasn't.
Report | Quote | X
Helmi wrote on 18-09 13:27:
Helmi wrote:
Helmii wrote:
why does finland have a different font and color of its text ):
allllsoooo sources?
Report | Quote | X
Helmi wrote on 18-09 13:26:
Helmi wrote:
 why does finland have a different font and color of its text ):
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 13:24:
Libertas wrote:
Kanelie wrote:
i don't think this article makes any sense tho
How come? 
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 13:22:
Kanelie wrote:
 i don't think this article makes any sense tho
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 13:19:
Chlorine wrote:
 I love the layout, it's amazing 
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 13:18:
Libertas wrote:
Amren wrote:
Interesting article and the layout is so pretty, love the colours! đź’•
Thank you so much with the translating and all that 
Report | Quote | X
AmmDanisa wrote on 18-09 13:16:
AmmDanisa wrote:
 Good Job!!
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 13:15:
Amren wrote:
 Interesting article and the layout is so pretty, love the colours! đź’•
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 12:08:
Luminescence wrote:
 Yayy the article is finally out 🙌🏼🙌🏼 Good job 💓
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 18-09 12:03:
Libertas wrote:
 I'm so excited about this article! 


News archive
DA | Bimbo23-08-2022 20:00
Monkeypox15-08-2022 19:00
The 2022 UEFA European Women's Football Championship07-08-2022 18:00
NTMM: July 202231-07-2022 20:00
A history of social media23-07-2022 19:00
News Around The World15-07-2022 17:00
The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes07-07-2022 21:00
NT Magazine | June30-06-2022 19:00
Attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people then and now: A retrospect23-06-2022 18:18
The Pride Parades15-06-2022 19:16
LGBTQ+ Flags07-06-2022 20:30
NT Magazine: May31-05-2022 19:30
Celebrating Star Wars25-05-2022 15:00
NATO - defender of security?20-05-2022 19:00
Heartstopper10-05-2022 12:31
NT Magazine | April30-04-2022 17:00
Stress Awareness Month25-04-2022 22:11
Childhood nostalgia: TV shows20-04-2022 18:00
Destination: Easter Island15-04-2022 14:00
Guest Writer: Food World10-04-2022 14:00
NT Magazine: March01-04-2022 16:00
Beijing 2022 Winter Paralympics20-03-2022 14:00
Ukraine15-03-2022 16:00
How you can help the people of Ukraine10-03-2022 12:00
NT Magazine | February28-02-2022 20:00
Previous | Page: | Next
© 2023 Terms of Use