4 ms·

A couple of years ago my wife's 2 years old nephew was diagnosed with retinoblastoma (eye's cancer). I contacted the world's best hospitals and was told that th

A couple of years ago my wife's 2 years old nephew was diagnosed with retinoblastoma (eye's cancer). I contacted the world's best hospitals and was told that the treatment will cost hundreds of thousands dollars. So I tried to get some financial help from related funds and organizations and contacted all of them I could find on the internet. Guess what happened: 90% of them just ignored me, and the rest told me that they are not helping sick kids, but only doing research work. One came up to cover up to $3.500(!) if I provide a bunch of documents I was sure I wouldn't be able to gather in a short term. On web pages of such funds you normally can easily find a button to make a donation. But try to contact them if you need help - you will be surprised how difficult it is. So we (relatives and friends) collected as much money as we could, the kid was receiving treatment in one of the local hospitals, in the end both of his eyes got removed. Maybe the same would have happened in those best hospitals too, but if there was even the slightest chance to keep his sight it certainly would worth any money. Bottom line is - I don't believe in cancer funds any longer, and will never donate any dime. In fact I'm not even sure that they spend all money for "Research", they might be just another way to avoid taxes. May be Bill Gates fund is different, I hope so...

MichaelGG 14y ago
In the past, the foundation has explicitly stated that they are not looking to fund clinics and specific work. While that kind of charity provides immediate help to people, it does not provide any long-term solutions. Bill Gates does not have unlimited money. The $40BN or so they manage is not enough to really make an impact if they focus on immediate solutions like helping individual cases. They need to use the money to research better ways and change how governments handle things so that the overall system will be better. While it's sad about what happened to your nephew, it's much more sad if such diseases remain expensive and difficult to treat and more people suffer in the future. Unfortunately, it is not worth unlimited amount of money to save one child's sight. Do the math. If the Gates foundation spent $100,000 to help one person out, they'd be able to only help about 400,000 people. That, in the scope of things, is not a whole lot of impact. Their current plan will have far more impact.
- realcertify 14y ago
  I see your point, but considering that there are almost no advances in cancer treatment over last decades (despite all that research), may be it would make some sense to spend some of that money to help sick people? Especially 2 year old kid with such rare type of cancer? In fact trying to help him could be a great research in itself, but looks like it's not something they are interested in.
  - MichaelGG 14y ago
    Even if there were no advancements, which is certainly not the case, no, it would still probably not be a good use of the money. If all forms of cancer are simply unsolvable (not the case), then research would be better spent on researching other diseases, working to change healthcare so the costs are not extremely expensive, and so on. And why spend $100K+ to save one child? Why not that money, to, say, feed many starving children? Or build housing? If "trying to help him" would be a form of "great research", then chances are someone would be interested in it. You might need to realise that he is simply unlucky. But not necessarily any more unlucky than a child that gets polio, or has their skin burned off, or is left brain damaged from a car accident. It's complicated and sad, but denouncing long-term investment because of immediate sad situations will only create more sad situations.
  - onedev 14y ago
    So do you propose we just stop cancer research just because there have been no immediate advances? "Trying to help him could be a great research in itself" Only if you volunteered your nephew as a test subject to go through unproven clinical trials.
  - adaml_623 14y ago
    I'm sorry about your nephew. But I'd like to tell you that actually cancer treatment has gotten better: http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/Newsroom/LivingAfterCancerMedianCancerSurvivalTimes.pdf http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/Newsroom/Livin... The situation isn't great and that report highlights the problems. And rare cancers are not going to attract research effort until the common ones are solved. But fundamental research is what is required. And I believe that rich philanthropists are going to remain an essential part in funding that research.
gesman 14y ago
I used to volunteer for one of the world famous named-after-desease organization. They organizing yearly events collecting funds for "research". While events are fun and people are happy to gather together - no one knows what exactly this "research" does and what outcome of it. People just assume that someone somewhere researching something and then one day magic solution will appear as a result of this research and that disease will disappear forever. I think doing the same thing all over again and expect a different result is just plain stupid. So on next even the management of this organization arrived on three brand new, shiny SUV's bought using donated funds. The only good thing coming from these fundraisers is that people are getting together, socializing and participating in decent activities. The reset of it - in particular - "collecting funds for research" is a bullshit bordering with scam.
- illuminate 14y ago
  Even still, "research"-focused organizations are still superior to the much less savory "awareness"-based organizations that take money to promote themselves and give as little as possible towards problem solving and aid.

MichaelGG 14y ago

In the past, the foundation has explicitly stated that they are not looking to fund clinics and specific work. While that kind of charity provides immediate help to people, it does not provide any long-term solutions. Bill Gates does not have unlimited money. The $40BN or so they manage is not enough to really make an impact if they focus on immediate solutions like helping individual cases. They need to use the money to research better ways and change how governments handle things so that the overall system will be better. While it's sad about what happened to your nephew, it's much more sad if such diseases remain expensive and difficult to treat and more people suffer in the future. Unfortunately, it is not worth unlimited amount of money to save one child's sight. Do the math. If the Gates foundation spent $100,000 to help one person out, they'd be able to only help about 400,000 people. That, in the scope of things, is not a whole lot of impact. Their current plan will have far more impact.

realcertify 14y ago
I see your point, but considering that there are almost no advances in cancer treatment over last decades (despite all that research), may be it would make some sense to spend some of that money to help sick people? Especially 2 year old kid with such rare type of cancer? In fact trying to help him could be a great research in itself, but looks like it's not something they are interested in.
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  Even if there were no advancements, which is certainly not the case, no, it would still probably not be a good use of the money. If all forms of cancer are simply unsolvable (not the case), then research would be better spent on researching other diseases, working to change healthcare so the costs are not extremely expensive, and so on. And why spend $100K+ to save one child? Why not that money, to, say, feed many starving children? Or build housing? If "trying to help him" would be a form of "great research", then chances are someone would be interested in it. You might need to realise that he is simply unlucky. But not necessarily any more unlucky than a child that gets polio, or has their skin burned off, or is left brain damaged from a car accident. It's complicated and sad, but denouncing long-term investment because of immediate sad situations will only create more sad situations.
- onedev 14y ago
  So do you propose we just stop cancer research just because there have been no immediate advances? "Trying to help him could be a great research in itself" Only if you volunteered your nephew as a test subject to go through unproven clinical trials.
- adaml_623 14y ago
  I'm sorry about your nephew. But I'd like to tell you that actually cancer treatment has gotten better: http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/Newsroom/LivingAfterCancerMedianCancerSurvivalTimes.pdf http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/Newsroom/Livin... The situation isn't great and that report highlights the problems. And rare cancers are not going to attract research effort until the common ones are solved. But fundamental research is what is required. And I believe that rich philanthropists are going to remain an essential part in funding that research.

gesman 14y ago

I used to volunteer for one of the world famous named-after-desease organization. They organizing yearly events collecting funds for "research". While events are fun and people are happy to gather together - no one knows what exactly this "research" does and what outcome of it. People just assume that someone somewhere researching something and then one day magic solution will appear as a result of this research and that disease will disappear forever. I think doing the same thing all over again and expect a different result is just plain stupid. So on next even the management of this organization arrived on three brand new, shiny SUV's bought using donated funds. The only good thing coming from these fundraisers is that people are getting together, socializing and participating in decent activities. The reset of it - in particular - "collecting funds for research" is a bullshit bordering with scam.

illuminate 14y ago
Even still, "research"-focused organizations are still superior to the much less savory "awareness"-based organizations that take money to promote themselves and give as little as possible towards problem solving and aid.