/People were divided into 2 groups – one had to prepare defence of blood donation and the other group was the prosecutor. 30 minutes for preparation./

Leticia Cortes Ferreira had the responsibility of judge,

Jury was consisted of Niels Mikkelsen, Jean-Marie Durant, Carine Breuer and Kadi Grichin

Mikkel Dybtved Andersen was the court secretary.

Arguments of the defence – presented by Mads Peter Aagaard Madsen

Voluntary and unpaid blood donation is something really special and thankful thing.

Donors think it’s a good idea. They do it because they like it, and there is likelihood that they will continue being donors.

Donors are doing it voluntarily, and unpaid donation means that it is insensitive thing to do not egoistic – donors do not because of money, but because they think it will make a difference.

Donors have improved health. It stimulates blood production in the donor. And it is also healthy receptions.

It is used as medicine to lot of seriously ill people.

Blood is a cheap medicine.

Calling the witness > Katre Plaan, North-Estonian Blood Center

In order to prove the fact that non-paid blood donation is safer: there has been done surveys that show that there are 3 times more HIV positives in Estonia than Lithuania, but they have a lower rate of HIV in the blood bank. And people do not get paid in Estonia and they do in Lithuania.

ACCUSATION: One can get HIV via blood transfusion. There are new cases of HIV because of HIV transfusion.

Katre: It depends on the stuff of blood centers. There are people who get diseases around the world because of different reasons. Blood donation is not the main cause of getting HIV!

Donors are aware of their responsibility, so they take care of themselves.

Principle of ethics - human right says no one should receive money for giving away the vital body parts – and blood is a vital organ.

People die after receiving blood of the wrong blood type.

Most blood does not save lives – it only improves lives (Lung cancer for example).

Calling the witness: doctor Jacob K. Pedersen who presented a number of doubtful data.

Jacob: So if it only makes lives longer, it causes a long dead…There are self-caused diseases some people could obtain from blood. (Witness is ending up by saying that 80 % if statistics is proved to be wrong)

The money can be better spent another place – where it will save more lives- there are hundreds of people dying in Africa, who are suffering under lack of food and lack of clean water.

It takes a long time to give the blood - You have to take off from work, it is bad for you companies and thereby to the economy as a whole.

The blood given is saving lives of murderes, thieves, bad people.

Energy misspend on petrol. Refrigerators and other machines take a lot of energy.

Chemicals, testing the blood etc. etc. – just a waste of money!

Blood donation is just a luxury.

It is discriminative. Gays cannot give blood – it is not fair.

Calling the witness: – gay lawyer rejected as blood donor (wonderful, emotional story and convincing acting by Horia)

There is no control where the blood goes.

People can get hurt by giving blood. Donor injuries.

Calling the witness – the previous world master runner, now with one leg, due to an accident in the way to the blood centre.

Needles are reused.

Vein punctures.

Religious believes.

Such arguments as religion cannot be brought to the court.

Secondly, it is doctors responsibility, not ours to decide, who should be given blood – they have given the oath of Hippokrates, so they really should know better and we should trust their decisions and not doubt that they will put children first in the list to receive blood.

About human rights – yes, there are some restrictions concerning who can not give blood – but it is decided so for everybody’s safety sake. And - there is no discrimination of receiving blood, the blood will be give out regardless of sex, race, nation, sexual orientation – as the principle of blood donation is.

There are risks everywhere, we cannot exclude them for blood donors even if we would like to, so, the possible injuries are also not a strong argument against the blood donation as a whole.

There always are risks for donors and also to some patients – if they get the wrong blood type – we just have to make sure, that doctors are really careful and do not mistakes.

Economical argument – of course the blood donation as the all medication takes a lot of money, but it is still the best way to save lives. Blood donation is cheaper than most treatments. It is of course very important that blood donation will not become too expensive.

You cannot save the people in Africa for instance just by giving them the money that you would otherwise spend on blood collecting and testing, because the people in Africa are not only suffering under lack of food and pure water, but also safe blood.

All blood is tested now all around the world, so the safety risks are minimized.

So, to sum up - there are risks and some problems, but thanks to the blood donation you can save so many lives every day, that jury is convinced, that we should keep on supporting the unpaid, voluntary blood donation.

Workshop Closing: Those questions, arguments, accusations you face every day if you are involved promoting the blood donation. So let’s look for both sides, keep in mind different point of views so that we can have better awareness about the blood donation!