|
|
Post by naill on Oct 6, 2012 11:23:33 GMT -5
Back in the '90's I got involved with the Arthritis Foundation. They had all types of events to raise money. One day I asked the local Rheumatologists if they knew about the AR. All they knew is that they had a local office. I asked the AF if they knew the local Rheumatologists and they didn't.
Of all the foundations I know, including the Heart Association, the AF, the Alzheimer's Assoc. and the Diabetes Foundation, the only one that I know who really touches the area of practical research is the Diabetes Foundation.
I suppose my complaint is that these agencies cause people to feel that if they work and give to them, a cure will be found sooner. What is your perspective on these organizations?
|
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Oct 6, 2012 11:40:13 GMT -5
I'm pretty leery of most large charitable foundations. When I give money, I give it to the Salvation Army. I also do the once a month thing to one of those children's funds in Africa. I'm not sure if the latter is a good idea or not, but I have been giving to the same family for years and don't want to cut them off.
My guess is that many of the medical foundations spend an unhealthy amount of their resources promoting themselves. Just a hunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by sordello on Oct 6, 2012 21:19:54 GMT -5
Over here, many of those 'disease' foundations have multiple purposes - most notably, education, advocacy and in a minor sense mediation/liaison activities. So the money goes to more than just research. Alot of times here, when folks are diagnosed with arthritis, they are told to contact the AF here to get information and resources and advice from pratictioners for re-vamping the home to make life more comfortable - all things apart from the laboratory.
I don't envy these foundations. People in tight times are looking for reasons to not give money and it is an easy target to point at marketing strategies. Most companies know you need to spend money to get money. The trick is to spend $1 to get $2. Problem is, people will look at that $1 expense on something they think is silly - advertising, fridge magnets, keychains, etc... and then say, "I'm not giving them my money! They blow it on stupid keychains!!!"
People don't see the advertising/marketing need to get their name out and in public circulation to get the bigger money in.
We had a local hospice centre here hire a fundraising consultant to bring in the money. People raged at the salary he was being paid: "what a waste of good money!!" They didn't even look at the fact the guy quadrupled the donations intake and brought in well more than his salary cost.
Some people believe that a charity should be giving nearly all its donations to the needy, but sometimes you need costs to bring in the big dollars.
|
|
|
|
Post by naill on Oct 7, 2012 6:37:44 GMT -5
Some people believe that a charity should be giving nearly all its donations to the needy, but sometimes you need costs to bring in the big dollars. I can't disagree. When I hear the local head for the Alzheimer's chapter talk about the fund raising walks by adding that "we have to find a cure for this disease" and know that they do no research and most of the money collected goes to perpetuate the organization, that represents the problem I see. Most likely the cure, if even possible, will come from private and corporate research and will have some profit motivation, not from collecting money from "walks". In the case of diabetes, we know that diet and exercise are hallmarks for successful management. So, why have a walk to find a cure? Will my walking and collecting money cause others to eat better and exercise? Will it cause companies to do more research that they would not be doing already? |
|
|
|
Post by zenmaster on Oct 7, 2012 13:25:08 GMT -5
In the case of diabetes, we know that diet and exercise are hallmarks for successful management. So, why have a walk to find a cure? Will my walking and collecting money cause others to eat better and exercise? Will it cause companies to do more research that they would not be doing already? You're speaking of Type II Diabetes which does have a lifestyle component to it. There is also Type I Diabetes which is not related to lifestyle choices and cannot be managed via lifestyle changes. In Type I Diabetes the body doesn't produce the right amount of insulin and no lifestyle change can alter that. . Diabetes foundations work for both types of diabetes. |
|
|
|
Post by lindaw on Oct 8, 2012 7:24:07 GMT -5
Type II is largely misunderstood in that it is blamed on the sufferer. Much like cholesterol, sometimes all the lifestyle changes in the world will only make minimal changes and treatment is indeed necessary to make change.
|
|
|
|
Post by zenmaster on Oct 8, 2012 8:21:08 GMT -5
Type II is largely misunderstood in that it is blamed on the sufferer. Much like cholesterol, sometimes all the lifestyle changes in the world will only make minimal changes and treatment is indeed necessary to make change. I agree. |
|
