4 ms·

Can you? If we took the money donated to Watsi, let these people suffer/die instead, and used it all to solve an "underlying problem" - would it help more peopl

Can you? If we took the money donated to Watsi, let these people suffer/die instead, and used it all to solve an "underlying problem" - would it help more people? Without a lot of research that answer seems difficult to get to. I think in the interim, helping these people is a fine use of some people's disposable income. Also, consider that money going to Watsi does not necessarily stop money going to a different/more effective cause. Many people donating to this may not donate to a different idea, and vice versa.

cgag 13y ago
I'm not necessarily talking about solving underlying problems like lack of good healthcare, I was actually just thinking about the idea that if you have 1000 dollars to give, it's worth considering the trade offs between giving it to one person for a surgery, or buy 200 bed nets to protect people from malaria or protect 200 kids from developmental problems caused by parasitic worms: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities.
- JoshuaDavid 13y ago
  It actually seems to be a fairly close call. It seems that bed nets prevent about 1 death from malaria for every $2000 or so [1], whereas the quality of life of some of the Watsi patients can be significantly improved for $500 to $1000 [see 2]. So the question is what the relative value of each is, and while I think the balance weighs in favor of malaria prevention, it's not a clear-cut decision. [1] http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/ins... [2] https://watsi.org/profile/8d8d49907cc9-hussein https://watsi.org/profile/8d8d49907cc9-hussein