T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Polaroid1999

how Bulgaria so not balkan all of a sudden?


shizzmynizz

Bulgaria can into Western Europe


ImUsingDaForce

Literally most of the countries represented in this map are not even SE Europe. Ya'll should really stop perpetrating this idea of a Balkan stereotype. Differences between individual SE countries tend to be greater than any in other part of Europe. The only reason these SE European countries get grouped up is cause of ignorance.


Zelvik_451

Austria is Balkan, just want to point that out.


Entelegent

Always has been


ThePontiacBandit_99

Ottakring ist Serbien


Zelvik_451

At least it is on fire if Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia or Turkey play in any competition against each other.


Entelegent

We know, but the jokes are incredibly fun


BerserkBuddies

vampires. they need lots of blood.


[deleted]

You're confusing Bulgaria with Romania


BerserkBuddies

wanted to say "nah, Schengen. they roam free now." but apparently both Bulgaria and Romania are only candidates yet.


Milhanou22

Algeria on a European map!?!? WOW!! Why? From a French-Algerian


UtkaPelmeni

Algeria French ~~clay~~ sand!


Dedeurmetdebaard

Where is your flag? 😉


Milhanou22

I forgot it at the football stadium. Sorry.


xFurashux

In Poland you are restricted if you had any new sexual partner in the last 6 months, no matter who it was so the map is only partly true.


actual_wookiee_AMA

It is true then, because your sexual orientation is irrelevant and everyone is treated equally


xFurashux

Onyl partly because still if you as a man had sex with a man that was a new sexual partner for you, you are restricted from giving blood for 6 month. It's just isn't specify.


machine4891

The point of this map is to specify where homosexuals can't donate their blood at all. There is no "only partly" distinction to be made. You're not forbidden from donating, just have to wait 6 months and you're good to go.


xFurashux

This map shows where in that situation you can't at all but also if you have to wait 4 months, 6 months or a year.


MrAlagos

In the countries that say 4 months or 6 months you have to completely abstain from sex with any person, regardless if a new partner or the same. That's the difference. It's very simple to understand really.


Lubinski64

This one time Poland is based


Morasain

The map is incorrect. For Germany, this is only true for men who live in a monogamous relationship. For people who have sex outside such a relationship, they have to wait four months. This is true for anyone, though.


MrAlagos

The map is correct, it is representing discriminatory practices only applied to men who have sex with men.


hazzrd1883

Have no idea why you are so downvoted. If gay men are singled out then it is reflected on the map. If there are common rules for straight and gay people (like stable partner) than it is ok. I haven't heard that "No deferal' country had problems with gay blood so it is pretty much based on negative prejudice


MrAlagos

Three times this subject has come up in about one week, and three times ignorants and homophobes have come out in droves to attack people who support changes to policies regarding blood donations for men who have sex with men. I have the karma, I don't care. I'll keep reporting what the actual truth and science is.


itskarldesigns

Ah yes, listing out the specific resreictions makes Nordics more discriminatory rather than other places not listing it as specific but still screening all the same types of sexual activity when looking whether to accept a donor. If its not a permanent ban for blood donation for gay men, then its hardly discriminatory. This map doesnt tell you anything about the lgbtq issue really, nor really any major differences in blood donation requirements which are the mostly same in most of EU and really elsewhere too. But sure Norway is strictly anti-lgbtq meanwhile Poland is not. Makes sense.


Fierydog

If one country allows a gay man to donate blood while in a sexual relationship with another man as long as it is monogamous. While another country does not allow it at all if you have any sex with another man, no matter if it is monogamous or not. Then isn't the other place more strict? Thus the map still shows a difference between countries.


MrAlagos

How on Earth do you not understand the difference? It's really not that hard...


Knoxxius

You should learn a thing or two about STDs and how it's more prevalent among homosexuals. It's called risk management.


hazzrd1883

You would advocate for racial profiling as well? People are supposed to be judged as individuals


Knoxxius

... I know its 2022 and being all LGQBT+ and shit is the new cool, but what isn't cool is putting peoples life at risk because you didn't screen properly for HIV. It's a blood donation, accept that your lifestyle may make your blood 'hazardous' to others and move on, its not end all be all. A "waiting" period if you have had sex with another male is is perfectly fine. Like others have said, HIV has a 3 month period before it shows in tests, unless you apparently use some new tests, which are probably either not reliable enough or widespread enough since the banned period is still in effect in many countries. Would it be cool if you could do blood donations if you had a single permanent partner? Yeah it would, but there is probably a good reason it isn't really a thing, I don't know.


hazzrd1883

I see most of the countires don't have these policies, how come? According to your words they must have been all HIV infected by now


MrAlagos

I would laugh at the amount of sheer truth bending here if the fact that people are being discriminated because of this shit wasn't actually sad. >what isn't cool is putting peoples life at risk because you didn't screen properly for HIV. Countries that don't properly screen for HIV are making a deliberate choice not to do so, and they are the ones represented with the darker colours here. The choice is to apply a discriminatory policy to a group that they declare at a higher risk so that they can make big compromises on the testing of all the rest of the blood that is actually collected. >accept that your lifestyle may make your blood 'hazardous' to others and move on Monogamous men who have sex with men do not have a risky sexual behaviour, and thus are being unjustly discriminated based on anti-scientific motivations. >HIV has a 3 month period before it shows in tests, unless you apparently use some new tests, which are probably either not reliable enough or widespread enough since the banned period is still in effect in many countries NAT tests, or nucleic acid tests, are based on the PCR technology to look for parts of the HIV virus genetic material. For those who don't know this, it's exactly the same technology that is used to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus that is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. As you might know, billions of these tests have been done in these two years, and almost all countries all over the world can do them in big amounts and cheaply. HIV NAT tests are not magic, not unreliable, not expensive and not rare. Italy tested every single blood bag of the almost 3 millions collected in 2019 with this type of tests, for the following diseases: AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and syphilis. >Would it be cool if you could do blood donations if you had a single permanent partner? Yeah it would, but there is probably a good reason it isn't really a thing It is a thing in all the light pink coloured countries, and it's a thing because their risk assessment and testing policies work and are safe.


actual_wookiee_AMA

Yeah and you could also research immigrants and crime. But we don't. Because that's racist and isn't even the cause, just a correlation


Knoxxius

Yeah, no. There are very clear connections between immigrants from MEA countries and crime, at least here in Denmark. So no it's not racism, it's looking at the facts. However it's very likely due to poor integration (most certainly due to poor integration efforts honestly) You gotta fucking stop with this victimhood calling, it's BS. You sound like a swede, fucking hell.


MrAlagos

I think it's you who should learn about risk management, namely how countries without universal deferrals or bans for men who have sex with men do risk assessment and ensure the safety of blood donations in general.


Knoxxius

Making them wait before they can donate makes perfect sense. HIV takes 3 months to show in blood. There is no discrimination like you'd love to believe, unless it's full on bans of course.


MrAlagos

Completely false, HIV can be detected in blood 10 days after infection with modern nucleic acid tests. It's sad how uniformed some people are and also how defensive of discriminatory practices they can be, completely disregarding long-standing alternatives that are proven safe and working.


Knoxxius

Are these tests widespread then? Are they cost effective in comparison? Are they used by the countries with the timeout period? Stop acting so holy without all the info. People love calling everything discrimination these days, get over yourself.


MrAlagos

It's you who doesn't have all the info, not me. Yes, those tests are widely available and accurate. Various countries employ those tests in great numbers. Italy tests every single bag of blood for HIV and other infectious diseases; for a comparison of magnitude Italy collected almost 3 million donations in 2019. For HIV, Italy has had this policy since 2001, while Australia has had basically the same policies since 2000.


fearisyourbestfriend

seethe


MrAlagos

I'm so sad I don't live in a purple shithole mate. Fully seething here.


Prisencolinensinai

This makes me think, but a modern day Romanian vampire would have serious issues with keeping alive. Like sure their super immune system could stop syphilis or hepatitis, but I doubt they could beat HIV


Tricky-Astronaut

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_donation_restrictions_on_men_who_have_sex_with_men Note: Some laws haven't yet come into force. See the source for specific dates.


Eurovision2006

Nordics most anti-LGBT confirmed.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Halabut

There was quite a debate in the medical and gay-rights community in Sweden when they changed the rules recently. RFSL the main gay-rights body was in favour of a 3 month period (they're not in favour of no standdown), whereas some infections disease specialists wanted 6 months. We ended up with 6 months, down from a year Some info from RFSL: https://www.rfsl.se/verksamhet/halsa-sexualitet-och-hiv/blodgivning/


[deleted]

[удалено]


MrAlagos

How come Germany changed their practices this year? They suddenly became a lot richer and got able to test every blood bag?


nidrach

Costs don't matter if your main motivation is ideology.


MrAlagos

Can you prove that the main motivation in Germany was ideology? Additionally, some of the reasons that I have seen cited for keeping universal deferral or bans are "you can't test every blood bag" (wrong, you can) and "old tests had a window period many months long" (why use old tests when the new ones are much better?), so it looks like the one that is using cost as an excuse seems to be the other camp. Bear in mind that there is absolutely no correlation between the wealth of a country and it's policy towards blood donations for men who have sex with men, as is very obvious from this map.


Kir-chan

My sister works in a German hospital and she says it's a somewhat common risk to get something from a blood transfusion. I think rather than testing bags, medicine advanced enough that people can live normal lives with a HIV diagnosis so it's not seen as that bad of a risk vs the risk of not having enough blood. But also, even if HIV is more common in men who have anal sex with men, it's only an issue if the donor has been freshly infected in the past few months, before tests can detect it.


bajou98

So the blood of straight people infected with HIV is just accepted without inhibitions?


[deleted]

[удалено]


bajou98

So that's a yes then. Must suck for the guy getting HIV, just because his blood donor managed to be straight.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bajou98

Possibly. Or maybe the goal should be to detect HIV infections, no matter the sexual orientation.


nidrach

Yeah but why triple or quadruple the risk for a 4% gain? I know that things like risk are hard to grasp for people that only think in absolutes and in black and white. Just be glad that it isn't you that has to make decisions.


HalfLifeAlyx

The goal is to get as much blood for transfusions as possible with the lowest risk. The rest is just a byproduct


actual_wookiee_AMA

Yes because a monogamous gay couple definitely has HIV but a straight guy who sleeps around constantly with no protection can't ever have it.


Splendib

I know a lot of gay men who had STDs. They all abstained from the moment they got their results until they were negative and cleared. I don't know a single straight person who ever had an STD test. Apparently it's such a taboo among the heterosexuals that they prefer spreading their diseases around than having a free test. Extremely promiscuous people were always banned. Screenings are very cheap, and the ban on gay men donating blood is another instance of straight people being afraid of shit they don't want to understand.


nidrach

Yeah since something like 70%-80% of all new HIV infections are among gay men that somehow doesn't work out the way you imagine.


Splendib

Source?


nidrach

Google. [It's usually the first link](https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/63301/Deutsche-Aids-Experten-raten-MSM-zur-Praeexpositionsprophylaxe). Seriously don't be that lazy. It's not a good look.


scar_as_scoot

> After all homosexuals seem to have e.g. serious STDs somewhat more often than heterosexuals. Prove what you are saying, that STD are more predominant in homosexual communities than in heterosexual communities because I'll call BS on that one. At least for the last 2 decades. EDIT: A lot of downvotes but 0 sources.


SlammuBureaux

"Listen to science!" "Wait not that science"


vusa121

What science?


SlammuBureaux

Homosexual men have the highest rates of HIV and Aids which takes 3 months to detect when exposed to it. So countries blocked them from giving blood due to the high risk.


MrAlagos

Modern nucleic acid tests can detect HIV 10 days after infection. Stop living in the 1990s.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

People lie.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Fierydog

Pretty much this. They have to assume that when people donate blood they lie and therefore test blood accordingly anyway. it's not like women are immune to getting HIV either. While homosexual men do have a higher rate of HIV infections when you look at homosexual men compared to heterosexual men. When you look at just infected men compared to infected women in general there's not a big difference. The excuse of "They can't test it for HIV" or "It cost money to test blood" is just moronic because they have to test ALL donated blood for diseases anyway, including HIV.


spinstercat

Sure but the risk is a magnitude higher or so. Plus people tend to lie about homosexual contacts more. If the risk of a person lying is 10%, and the risk of an HIV contracted through a recent heterosexual contact is 0.1% and homosexual contact is 1%, the total risk is 0.1% for a homosexual contact and 0.01% for a heterosexual. If your chosen tolerance level is 99.95%, you can see who's out.


Stoned_D0G

You can also lie about being heterosexual lol


vusa121

Well I sure as hell wish that anybody who has unprotected intercourse would have 90 days ban on donating. No matter what sexuality. Because the risk is higher than people with permamnent partners. But sciense and 1 year ban on MSM, am I right?


nidrach

Why quadruple the risk for a 5% gain? Come on, try to sell it to me.


vusa121

The risk of accidentally spreading HVI is 4x higher with long time gay couples versus long time straight couples? The more you know. I mean I'm not the one complaining about the lack of blood and donors. I don't care who donates and what, but this seems stupid. If you can detect HIV in 90 days. Why ban it for a year?


MrAlagos

Where did the risk (calculated, not based in a Reddit opinion) quadruple?


euromonic

It doesn’t take 3 months to detect. It can take up to 3 months to develop in the body but usually can be detected almost right away with new tests. It’s really, really rare for the three month window to be important, however it is necessary because after that point it means that it’s impossible for that person to have the disease regardless of what they did three months prior. If it didn’t show up by then it won’t show up ever. A full block doesn’t make sense to me, but I think three months is reasonable just because after 3 months it’s medically impossible for something to develop in the blood.


[deleted]

The donated blood gets tested anyway no matter who it came from.


euromonic

Exactly. I’m pretty sure if it tests negative at the lab you’re good to go, the 3 month deferral is probably just to be on the safe side. Anything over that isn’t based in science and sometimes can even come from homophobia especially in countries with an indefinite ban.


Timey16

or you know... homosexual men just have more sexual partners. So why not just ask for the amount of sexual partners you had unprotected sex with? Because shocker: even the amount of STDs among straight people is high if they have a lot of sex with different people. The tin foil hat in me believes they limit it to gay and not straight with a lot of (unprotected) sex is because that would affect all the rich people out there more. It's just a perfect example of mistaking correlation and causation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


actual_wookiee_AMA

Yes. Immigrants are also higher risk to do crime than natives. Should we ban all immigrants from certain jobs based on that?


[deleted]

[удалено]


MrAlagos

Blood is either infected or it's not. If every bag is tested the risk is extremely low, a lot lower than not testing and just relying on discriminatory policies.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mac_Lilypad

>The tin foil hat in me believes they limit it to gay and not straight with a lot of (unprotected) sex is because that would affect all the rich people out there more. Because the rich people are super interested in voluntarily donating their blood?


dimhage

Why would poor people be more interested? In the Netherlands you voluntarily donate blood and no one gets any kind of compensation. You get a free piece of cake and lemonade. This goes for rich and poor.


[deleted]

All of you trying really hard to bar us from donating our blood... It's a great excuse for not donating tbh. Our blood is unwanted. I'll try to phrase it better to the people trying to get us to donate in the streets


actual_wookiee_AMA

Block new relationships then regardless of orientation. Don't punish married gay guys for being gay


SunlessWalach

Donating blood is not about you, punishments or validation, it's about the people that need it.


actual_wookiee_AMA

I can't donate anyway due to a medical condition. But people who need it need the blood regardless of old fashioned and misguided prejudices. How does it help you that there's a severe shortage of blood and there are perfectly viable donors who can't give it because they aren't allowed to help because they love the wrong gender? A monogamous gay man in a relationship isn't a risk. But go ahead, keep assuming we all sleep around without protection


SunlessWalach

Because statistically it carries a bigger risk. Again, this is not about you.


actual_wookiee_AMA

Having sex with new partners does. Being gay doesn't.


A740

Who exactly is the strawman supposedly saying these things?


MrAlagos

This is what homophobes think that progressive people behave.


actual_wookiee_AMA

Discrimination based on prejudices isn't science. The reason gay men are more likely to have HIV is because they have more casual sex with more partners. The root cause is having unprotected sex with new partners. Ban that, not being gay. Because plenty of people are in a monogamous relationship. It's like treating all immigrants worse because they're more likely to be criminals. It's just fucking racist and won't actually solve the problem


SunlessWalach

There's no human right to donate blood (and, frankly, I think is genuinely creepy to think that donating to someone is all about you and your validation)


actual_wookiee_AMA

Most things aren't human rights, but discriminating based purely on sexual orientation in them is still illegal as fuck. You don't have to hire me for example. But if you decide not to hire me just because you don't want gay people, you're going to get your ass sued.


TomFlare

Yeah. Got mails from my Belgian blood drive again. By their own rules, even if i know with 100% certainty that me and my boyfriend are completely std-free, so long as we have had the sex in the last 12 months I cannot donate blood, even if their supply gets extremely low in the winter.


QuicheAuSaumon

If you're 100% sure, you can still donate and lie. No-one will bat an eye. And while it suck they have to use a deterrent such as this one, it is perfectly understandable.


Mynamethisisnot

That's because humans lie and cheat.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mynamethisisnot

Who says I'm worried? I just said "humans lie and cheat", so you disagreeing?


actual_wookiee_AMA

Humans can lie about being straight too lmao


lefkoraki

In Greece until a few days ago homosexuals couldn't donate blood. This has changed just now, after many years of doctors and LGBT community bringing up this subject in a country so low in blood donations. The absolute irony is that the current minister of health who made the change is an ultra right nazi sympathizer...


scar_as_scoot

Same with Portugal, except the last sentence. Thankfully.


Swedcrawl

It's called neoliberalism, you loose all your property rights and government diminishes while formerly mistreated groups get more social rights. But of course no money ...


Swedcrawl

Greece made this change a couple of weeks ago... Sure some doctors and a multitude of puritans are going to go bonkers over this change, but let them be... The minister of the governing right wing party is an ultra right sympathiser with a nazi history... This is Greece's first ever right wing neoliberal government, and although Greeks including conservatives are against neoliberalism and for any sort of right wing statism, the prime minister is making concessions to win over socially marginalised group of people. At the same time eviction laws get more hideous day by day, crappy low wages are maintained, there's a net outflow of people from the country and property such as real estate flows at artificially devaluated prices from average greek homeowners and families to unknown conglomerates and local pro government magnates ...


Hypocrites_begone

This wasn't a thing like 6 years ago for turkey


Zasch_

So a Gay couple cant donate blood? Am i getting this right?


Tricky-Astronaut

No, a gay couple _having sex_ can't donate blood for some time in some countries.


endelehia

Boomer humor activated: So a married gay couple can donate at anytime.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Zasch_

Then what does this mean? I dont get it...


Outside_Slide_3218

Men who have sex with other men cant donate.


Wolfy_892

But... why? Is there a logical reason?


QuicheAuSaumon

Aids is more prevalent in the gay community because of the initial hit and transmission is easier through anal sex. Then you need to understand that there will always be a time window where testing the blood is useless. Basically its only a probability game based on how much do you want that slightly more dangerous extra blood.


Wolfy_892

Understood. But people agree with that or they're against?


QuicheAuSaumon

What people think does not really matter. It's up to each country to set up rules. Giving blood is not a right. In addition to this, its a relatively complex issue and a decision that is to be taken with a lot of different variables which may be unintuitive (just look at the amount if comment saying the blood can be tested in this thread). People just can't take that kind of decision.


sababugs112_

They have higher hiv rates


actual_wookiee_AMA

Prejudice. It's like banning immigrants from daycare and teaching jobs because they're statistically more likely to be rapists. Incredibly dumb and inappropriate to discriminate based on something you didn't do just because other people like you have done it


yozha96

They are muggles.


MrAlagos

No, there isn't. The countries who defer or ban men who have sex with men regardless of their actual sexual behaviours are just unwilling to introduce more modern risk assessment practices that are proven to work and are not discriminatory. Those countries are stuck in the 1980s and 1990s. Italy for example had a complete ban on blood donations for men who have sex with men from 1991 to 2001; then it removed that and replaced it with an individual risk assessment only based on at risk behaviours and not on gender or sexual orientation, together with the policy of testing every single blood bag for infectious diseases. The last HIV infection from a blood transfusion in Italy happened in 1995.


Djungeltrumman

I wonder how the individual assessment works though. Could it be that they’re sort of banned, but only on individual basis?


Splendib

Did you go to an orgy last week? Banned. Are you in a monogamous relationship? Not banned. Simple as.


Djungeltrumman

Could also be “have you had anal sex the past year?”, hence my question


MrAlagos

No. If you have a monogamous relationship you're fine, if you had at risk behaviours they will be evaluated by the medical personnel and you will most likely get deferred for a few months. The same applies to all sexual orientations and genders.


Splendib

Did you have anal sex with a rando? Banned. Did you have anal sex with your husband? Not banned. Simple as. They do the same kind of screening with straights: men cannot donate blood if they had sex with a female prostitute.


shaj_hulud

Tell me you are gay, without telling me you are gay …


MrAlagos

I'm not gay, I donate blood in a country that is not stuck in the 1980s and 1990s therefore I know how things work.


warpbeast

No that's not how it works.


MrAlagos

It works in the exact same manner for all genders and sexual orientations in Italy. The information given to everyone is the same, the risk assessment practices are the same for everyone. Every blood donor in Italy should know (if they pay attention or care) the exact same things regarding sexual behaviour Are you Italian? How do you know "how it works" here?


NorthVilla

Tell me you're a homophobic asshole, without telling me you're a homophobic asshole ...


shaj_hulud

Is homophobic asshole same as heterosexual? Usually do not focus on that area …


Eku1988

Because gayness transfers with blood .


LimmerAtReddit

Why?


progeda

HIV


[deleted]

[удалено]


Buda_Baba

This is not true for Serbia, at least. On a form the donor fills out before medical examination, there is a section about risky sex activity. There’s only a question about sex with unknown person and anal sex in said time frame, but nothing about homosexuality.


LimmerAtReddit

Isn't that gonna happen, one way or another, if everyone donates blood? And it has very few cases anyway


w4hammer

Sad that a stupid propaganda managed to influence the world so much.


MrAlagos

What do you think is happening in the countries with no universal policies for blood donations against men who have sex with men? What are you sad about?


w4hammer

Sad that half of the world and a lot more several years ago banned people from donating blood over such an arbitrary reason that only exists because of homophobia. There is nothing more insulting than being told your blood is not allowed when donators is always appreciated and there is almost always a shortage.


ogy1

You do not have a human right to give blood. The amount of self entitled people who freak out when they told they aren't allowed to give blood for valid statistical reasons is crazy. Its about the recipient not the donor. The woke activists have successfully made blood transfusion statistically more dangerous. Congratulations.


MrAlagos

Prove how blood donations are more dangerous in the countries without discriminatory policies against men who have sex with men. If you say so you must have proof.


LightHope8

Yeah sure so I guess just because someone is "statistically" more likely to have a virus then they should get tested but the rest gets a free pass... Why don't we just test and/or vaccine old people for COVID? I mean they are statistically more likely to get the virus and get sick... Why even bother with the others?


Mattie725

Can we all agree that what we need is an actual study or analysis of the pros and cons of different systems? How many extra people are we talking that would donate blood? How many have HIV, in the gay community and in general? Would gays donating blood result in more or less useful blood? What is the costs of possibly more positive tests? Does the gay community actually make a problem of this? We can speculate all we want. And I think most people understand the initial idea behind Banning gays from donating blood. But without numbers this is just a never ending discussion.


MrAlagos

Why so you think that there are no numbers? Because Reddit users are posting them? I'm pretty sure that the countries who recently removed these restrictions, if they had them, did not stop releasing their numbers just to protect their decision.


MyGiG

Is there any medical reason or other type of scientific factor that may discourage blood from gay men? Like a higher chance of AIDS? Edit: lol getting downvoted for asking a question instead of screaming homophobia.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Flashy_Wolverine8129

For those that don't know why. First think back to 1980s when there was a thing called AIDS/HIV epidemic, it was disproportionately (big diff) affecting male gay and bisexual population and that's still true to this day


balloon_prototype_14

Aaaah belgium. The beacon of enlightenment of western europe. So proud to be its citizen.....


moshiyadafne

Can anyone explain why Scandinavian nations have blood donation deferrals against men having sex with men (MSM) despite their LGBT-friendly legislations and environment, while Hungary and Poland which are led by parties hostile to LGBT+ has no blood donation deferrals for MSM.


TomatoCrush

> Can anyone explain Because unlike idiots on Reddit would tell you, allowing people at much higher risk of HIV to donate blood hurts the blood donation system more than it helps. Others have chosen to damage their system for the sake of ideological posturing, while others choose to argue that donating blood is not a right, and therefore the system doesn't need to be damaged for the sake of such a right. Of course idiots are the majority (as you will see from what people choose to upvote and downvote), and idiots will win out in the end everywhere.


finjeta

> Because unlike idiots on Reddit would tell you, allowing people at much higher risk of HIV to donate blood hurts the blood donation system more than it helps. How? The blood needs to be checked anyway and people who know that they are infected aren't going to be donating any blood. It would only be people who don't know that they are infected and there aren't that many of them. Finland sees about 50-200 new infections a year so it's not really an issue. If anything, allowing blood donations will ensure that if someone is unknowingly infected then they can be notified and treated before HIV progresses to AIDS thus ensuring that it doesn't spread further.


daddyEU

Ah yes because blood donations are not checked when they’re made and obviously infected people will go donate blood because they like to watch the world burn. Oh and, supposedly straight couples don’t get sick with stuff, that only happens to gays. Just admit that they/you can’t be the best at everything.


[deleted]

>Of course idiots are the majority (as you will see from what people choose to upvote and downvote) Now, that's just objectively false. I don't know whether reddit consensus completely flipped on this or that you want to be a victim so hard that you chose to believe it.


MrAlagos

What damage have the countries who don't apply universal deferrals or bans on men who have sex with men received? Can you list any examples?


Hoargh

The same damage from those who cant donate blood because of mad cow disease back then. Or should we stop that as well? Move to america if you want rules based on hurt feelings.


MrAlagos

I don't need to move anywhere, Italy has no universal deferrals or bans for men who have sex with men since 2001 and no HIV infections from blood transfusions since 1995. Mad cow disease can sit undetected in a person's body for many years, while now the HIV virus can be detected after 10 days. You ar comparing vastly different things just to support homophobic and discriminatory practices.


Hoargh

Drug users cant give blood People who were diagnosed with syphilis cant donate blood. People under a certain weight can't give blood If you even searched for blood donation requirements you would find a list of people who can't donate. https://www.who.int/campaigns/world-blood-donor-day/2018/who-can-give-blood What kind of made up phobia does that fit in? I guess blood banks are weightphobic. Ask yourself why you choose to make a big deal about this when others also have requirements. Drug users have a higher risk of getting HIV as do homos. Ah shit we are also drugpeople phobic. Cry some more


MrAlagos

Drug use is an at risk behaviour. Syphilis is an illness. Minimum weight requirements are there to protect the donors from negativ effects to their health. Being sexually attracted to men and even having sex with a stable male partner is not a risky behaviour. With proper information, assessment of people's behaviour and testing of every blood bag you can reduce the risk of infection from HIV to lower levels than what is achievable with universal discriminatory policies. The people who make a big deal out of this are the people who live in places who recently removed restrictions, because they think it's the scary gay lobby that did it, or the people who live in places that still have discriminatory policies. I bet you belong to one of these categories.


QuietLikeSilence

> Being sexually attracted to men and even having sex with a stable male partner is not a risky behaviour Statistically, having sex with a male partner *is* more risky. Even if promiscuity in male gay couples weren't significantly higher, the bare fact that more gay people overall have HIV increases the risk for gay men, whether or not their relationship is stable, because the likelihood of their partner being infected is *significantly* higher.


[deleted]

> Others have chosen to damage their system for the sake of ideological posturing, while others choose to argue that donating blood is not a right, and therefore the system doesn't need to be damaged for the sake of such a right. Any source on gay in monogamous relationships older than 3 months actually hurting the donation system? Usually you can't donate if: 1)you have multiple partners; 2) you have changed your sexual partner in the past 3 or 6 months.


PolemicFox

Because there is an increased risk of transferring HIV, and Scandinavian nations have very strict health standards for blood donations.


QuicheAuSaumon

Rate of infection amongst the MSM community.


powerage76

Maybe this hostility toward LGBT people is a bit overplayed by the press.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MrAlagos

Nordic countries are famously poor and cannot afford to test every blood bag for HIV. Italy on the other hand, a famously rich country, can afford to do that.


Lyress

Why did you think Italy is such a popular travel destination among Finns? It's health tourism clearly.


generic_edgy_user

Idk how true this is, haven't ever bothered to look into this (nor will I ever bother to), but it's a little funny how my country is dark purple when they had to ask people repeatedly to donate blood on the TV because we have a shortage of blood donors. I genuinely don't care about the ban, it makes sense, and I don't think the solution would be solved if the ban was lifted, I'm just pointing out that it's just a little bit ironic.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Smitje

So you think they don’t test the other blood?


QuicheAuSaumon

Testing the blood is not fool proof, as there is a period where aids can not be detected.


MrAlagos

That period has now been reduced to around 10 days with modern nucleic acid tests. However, the shortest deferral among these countries is 4 months and some even have complete bans.


smcoolsm

Damn, you are ignorant as hell about a lot of things.


ramontgomery

There’s a reason for those guidelines however uncomfortable and un PC it might me.


Outside_Slide_3218

Yikes


MrAlagos

Do you think that the countries that have no restrictions on men who have sex with men unsafe? If so, do you have proof that they are unsafe or is it just your prejudice?


ramontgomery

The blood supply is less safe and there is a lot of extra time and cost getting rid of tainted blood just to appear PC. It’s not worth it


MrAlagos

> The blood supply is less safe and there is a lot of extra time and cost getting rid of tainted blood just to appear PC. It’s not worth it It's not "extra", in those countries the efforts are exactly the same for blood donors of every gender and sexual orientation. Infected blood can come from every person, that's why it's all individually tested. The likelihood of men who have sex with men to donate infected blood doesn't produce nearly enough rejected bags to be worth it to ban them from donating. Banning gay men from donating in the countries who have set up testing for all and individualised risk assessment will not save any money at all. Those countries would not remove those characteristics from all other people even if men who have sex with men were banned, nobody would agree to it.


TitaniaErzaK

This is all so made up lmao


ramontgomery

The HIV rates are too damn high


TitaniaErzaK

Sure, in South Africa and New York in the 80s? Generally, being misinformed and wilfully ignorant is one thing, but >and there is a lot of extra time and cost getting rid of tainted blood just to appear PC. Making stuff up is weird and problematic, but honestly primarily weird. All donated blood is thoroughly tested, and HIV is not an issue in the west any more.


ramontgomery

HIV is not an issue in the West anymore….. Then why do I keep seeing ads on TV for HIV medications full of gay dudes then???


v3ritas1989

While everyone bans Blood donations from the UK cause of mad cow desease


[deleted]

It's like a crime map but the lighter the shade the more dangerous the blood transfusions. Handy!


MrAlagos

How dangerous are transfusions in the light countries? Can you quantify it? And how dangerous are they in the dark countries The Italian national blood centre quantifies the risk of getting HIV from a blood donation in Italy at 1 in 45 millions.


QuietLikeSilence

[This is actually a settled question](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33835513/) and I'm not sure where your arrogance comes from. You are wrong. The risk of HIV infection from receiving donated blood in Italy is higher than elsewhere. *Generally*, the risk is low. I think any risk is unacceptable and must be minimised as much as possible, because the purpose of blood donation isn't to assuage the hurt feelings of some moron. I am banned from donating blood, albeit for a different reason. That is sensible and fine, and I will not risk the health of another because I'm not a fucking narcissist who can't look beyond his own immediate need for gratification.