3 ms·
I don't think I'd go so far as egotistical, but I do think putting a "significant" amount of money towards an issue that, as stated, just doesn't affect the pat
by obviouslygreen 13y ago
I don't think I'd go so far as egotistical, but I do think putting a "significant" amount of money towards an issue that, as stated, just doesn't affect the patient's life that much is hard to fathom when there are so many fatal or crippling diseases and issues that such an amount of money could likely help as much.
Of course it's his money and his choice, and there's nothing bad or wrong about funding something that's important to him, but it does seem a little... shallow, I suppose.
- tomkarlo 13y agoUltimately, folks with money can use that money how they want. You can dock credits because he didn't donate it to providing clean water or some other cause that you deem more worthy, but ultimately it's his money and it seems like a reasonably charitable thing to donate it to trying to find cures that will be available to everyone. There's supposed to be room for folks to make personal decisions about charity; otherwise we should just do it via taxation.
- robryan 13y agoYeah, not sure why people are being negative. I would understand that it would be selfish to direct Google funds to this research. Don't we all direct a large amount of our personal funds though to things that benefit us?