Oh is that why I did it?
I'm sure it wasn't. And it wasn't meant as a criticism, I was just making a general point that individual charitable donations, and the myriad activities and 'challenges' attached to them, seem to have replaced collective responsibility organised and facilitated by a progressive state as the main way of providing support to those unfortunate enough to have illnesses or conditions which they need help with. I know it's boring, but wouldn't it be far more effective to have a properly funded health service and welfare state?
wouldn't it be far more effective to have a properly funded health service and welfare state?
Yep, I agree, couple of answers to that though I suppose.
1) the campaign started in the US where they have a rather different take on welfare and healthcare.
2) but even in the UK healthcare and welfare budgets are pretty tight
3) someone has to pay for research - it isn't in the interests of private pharmaceutical companies (or nationalised health care) to spend billions researching relatively rare conditions no matter how devastating they may be to individuals.
[url= http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/wrexham-man-faces-assault-charge-7668456 ][/url]
Not really in keeping with the spirit of things.
My mum died of MND ten years ago. Awareness and funds back then were virtually non existent and this had remained the case right up until this pesky social media explosion.
It doesn't matter to me that not everyone will do it, nor will they all donate money, nor even that they'll all take the time to find out what it is - but the fact that SOME people have, has meant that awareness and fundraising has gone through the roof compared to where it was. That to me makes this totally worth it.
While it's too late for my mum, it's amazing to think that a cure is at least now a possible thing in the future for all those facing the same fate as her.
someone has to pay for research - it isn't in the interests of private pharmaceutical companies (or nationalised health care) to spend billions researching relatively rare conditions no matter how devastating they may be to individuals.
This is the crux of it. It's a somewhat taboo subject, but isn't it about time we started asking where the line should be drawn in terms of the resources directed towards various diseases and conditons? It seems a ridiculous situation that the deciding factor on which diseases/conditions are targeted for research is whoever can think up the most attractive viral marketing campaign.
Interesting article here.
[IMG] 
?1[/IMG]
But the secondary question to that is, where will my donated pound have the most chance of saving a life?
It is so difficult for scientists, let alone lay people, to work out where research/disease prevention money can do the most good.
My best guess is that money spent on malaria prevention in developing countries - bednets/swamp drainage, or tropical disease vaccine development/distribution is probably the most effective in terms of lives saved and suffering alleviated.
River blindness is a good example.
[url= http://www.who.int/topics/onchocerciasis/en/ ]link[/url]
