Again, I'll be replying to one of Jaime's posts, this one about fund raising.
For those of you who won't view Jaime's blog, she asks the question: What's with needing to go on a 3 day walk to raise money for breast cancer? Can't we just give money without the walking? Does the phrase, "No pain, no gain" really apply to finding a cure for cancer?
Frankly, at first glance I was like, "Jaime and I agree! Stop shutting down the cities for days, cut out all of the T-Shirts, posters and hydration stations and just fork all of the money over to the charity! Make it a lean, efficient system!"
On the surface, that's true, but the more I think about it, the more you need a big "event" to take place. The longer the fund raisers need to participate, the more they need to train in advance, the more social events they'll need to cancel and the more stuff they need to buy all equate to more people will hear about the fund raising event. The more people hear about what they're doing, the more money they'll raise. The more money they raise, the sooner they'll find a cure. (Right?)
Breast cancer is the number one killer of women. Er wait, actually it's #6, causing only 1/8th the number of deaths of heart disease, a not-nearly-as-sexy topic. (Gee, I wonder why?)
Interestingly, a big 3 day walk and all of the preparation behind it could actually reduce the risk of women getting heart disease. Unfortunately, exercise has a limited impact on actually reducing the likelihood of breast cancer. Perhaps these walks are actually killing two birds with one stone... I digress...
The point of the Susan B Komen Race for the Cure 3 day walk is to find a cure for a disease that not only kills over 40,000 women a year in the United States, but causes severe, deep-cutting emotional wounds in tens of thousands of women and also deeply affects the lives of their friends and families in very serious and lasting ways. Having energy and attention around something of this magnitude is certainly worthwhile.
Question 1: Does fund raising by the public make any noticeably impact on finding cures for diseases? Isn't there enough financial incentive in capitalistic countries for private companies to research? Does all of the money raised by not-for-profits through individuals even compare to what private, for-profit corporations are pouring into research? How about what governments are pouring into research? I don't know the answer to this one. Someone should do some research for their blog. I find this to be very interesting question.
Question 2: in the U.S. Let's say that all of the fund raising by all individuals in this country to all breast cancer non-profits amounted to 0.1% of the total amount of funds appropriated to breast cancer research by the U.S. government and private U.S. corporations. Would donating to these causes by individuals for fund raisers make sense? I believe the answer would be a resounding no. What if that number increased to 1%? 15%? 50%? That's where things become a little more gray. Ahh the beauty of ethics. I have enough readers who must have an opinion on this.
Comment!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Matt:
1) Always happy to provide you with topics to blog about.
2) I am inspired to write a response, but not necessarily to the questions you raised.
3) I am curious - are you basically saying, in your two questions, that the amount of money raised by individuals during these events is possibly too insignificant to be worthwhile? Please expand. Thank you.
Yes, I am wondering if the amount of money is significant enough to be worthwhile.
I responded in my blog - but to the graph, not your questions.
Post a Comment