The power of debate and perspective

So last week we decided who our finalists are and who we wanted to give to, and we had a discussion over whether to give to the YWCA or the Binghamton zoo. As you all know we decided to give to the Binghamton zoo, after a large amount of rigourous debate. In my opinion, I would have preferred to give to the YWCA, but that is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the debate that we had in class and the importance of debate.
In the beginning of that class, if you told me that we would give to the zoo I would have called you crazy, since there are so many other organizations out there that at the time seemed so much more “worthy”. Yet in class, Sarah won over the crowd, and made us all realize that the Binghamton zoo is not only a worthwhile cause, but a cause that we could see ourselves giving part of the ten thousand dollars to. So in this case debate has changed our perspective on the zoo and what it does to both the animals and people of the community. Debate has changed our perspective on the community at large, and in my opinion that is the true power of debate.

Without changing our perspectives how can we ever be true philanthropists. To be true philanthropists we need to see an organization through the eyes of the organization, and through the eyes of the community as a whole, and then decide. This has a great resemblance to a minutiae in Jewish law. According to Jewish law, if every judge in a court of 71 agreed unanimously that someone was guilty he would be set free then and there, no questions asked. This is because if this ever occurs that would mean that not even one judge saw the case from the perspective of the defendant, and if that is true then what right do these judges have to discipline him. If we cannot see the world through the eyes of another, than we can not really judge them fairly. In the case of the Binghamton zoo, only one student saw the case through the eyes of the zoo and from there she managed to convinced her group and then the majority of the rest of the class of the importance of the zoo. In this case the singular person managed to convince the majority of the class through debate. In the case of the court that would be like one judge making the case for the defendant and convincing the rest of them that he is right. In my opinion, we always need that one person fighting against the crowd to make sure that we are being fair to all perspectives. So what are your thoughts on debate and perspective? Do you agree or disagree? Do you think there is more to it? Do you feel we judged every organization fairly even though in some cases no one wanted to give to them?

What Does Our Money Go To?

In class this week one of the topics of debate was the implementation of our grant money in an organization. This is an important point because we only have a limited number of funds, and we want to be as effective as possible. In order to achieve this goal the class must decide what projects are the most effective.

The specifics of an organizations plan is very important. What is at question here is what/how the organization will use the granted money they receive. Some of the organizations we debated wanted to buy specific technologies, while others wanted to buy appliances. In class the topic was about the purchase of a washer and dryer. This discussion really stuck with me. While we all agreed the purchase of the washer and dryer were beneficial, we decided against it. I specifically made the argument that our money should be used to effect individual people (i.e. condoms, food bus, and interactive trips). To me what makes these different than a washer and dryer is the fact that they are necessary to the functioning of the non-profit organizations.

In my opinion non-profits that use their money to directly effect people are more important than purchasing equipment. I agree that in most cases proper equipment is necessary, but what I want to focus on is the potential to fund projects completely paid for that are essential to the organizations overall mission. For instance the example of the Girls Scouts' trip. This program would pay for a week long camp for inner city school girls. Obviously we don't want to dwell on an organization that isn't a finalist, but the example is key. Does a project that is completely paid for such as this, a project that is more important than purchasing a washer and dryer? In my opinion yes, although i admit this is a case specific comparison and is not the case all the time. In a more general sense, the programs I am backing seem to fall under the direct giving category. In other words our money goes to a project that is aim to directly affect people. On the other hand the washer and dryer are mechanical appliances that serve to improve a specific part of someones lives. For me this is a very difficult comparison and I hope equally as difficult for the rest of the class. The overall question for me then is, should I support non-profits who are asking for money for essential aspects of their organization that directly affect people? Or should I support organizations that want to purchase "things" in order to improve their facilities in turn improving their ability to achieve their overall goal? I am obviously having some trouble with this.

I am curious to hear other people's opinions on this matter. How do you determine one project more important than another? Are the specifics on what/how the money is used an important determining factor? If not, how would argue differently?

Stigma

  I was finishing off the last few episodes of Breaking Bad on Netflix the other day when a line really struck me. *Slight Spoiler Alert* *Also, I'm sorry I couldn't find a suitable clip of the scenes I'm talking about, it's the very beginning and the interrogation at the end of episode 10 season 5, and then hank's interrogation of Jesse in the beginning of the next episode (where the soon following quote is from)*
  Anyways, so I'm watching an interrogation scene right after Jesse is caught "tossing millions of dollars all over [town]." Hank questions Jesse and he says, "Happy people usually don't go around throwing millions of dollars away, thank God." Now Breaking Bad doesn't translate to the real world all that well, but this line hasn't left my mind since I finished the show (like a month ago at this point, wow). The line seemed so very wrong after our Philanthropy and Civil Society class lessons - to me, it's probably the happiest people that would be giving away all that money! (Or perhaps someone soon to be deceased.) I thought about the man we read about who worked in Wall Street after college but still lived with roommates to donate all his money. I thought about The Power of Half, and how giving away money can transform someone's life. We all saw Mr. Salwen on Skype, he looked pretty happy and successful to me! That being said, my roommate is debating with me as I write this, saying that people may donate because they feel bad about themselves and want to feel better. While I do believe there is always some degree of personal satisfaction from philanthropic acts, I would say that giving is something done benevolently and not out of pain or sadness.
  Before this class if I was to talk with someone about wanting to give away money they would have looked at me like I was insane. It's like there's this expectation, you don't give money away unless you're dying or want your name on something. I feel that there's a social stigma against donating money freely, openly, without recognition, without excess. Perhaps that's due to some facet on the American Dream, a pressure to always expand capital. However, in class we've referred to donations as investments, something that may not increase personal wealth but can certainly increase a non-profit's capital. To me the American Dream is about promoting social mobility, which could be helped through philanthropic donations. Perhaps if philanthropy was addressed as a social investment, something that can increase GDP and economic prosperity in the long run as well as reducing hunger or helping single mothers, then more people would feel proud to talk about philanthropic acts. Perhaps then, the lens with which many view a philanthropic acts would change and the stigma would be lifted.
 

Donating at the cash register

“Would you like to donate $1 to such and such charity?” How many times have you been asked this question at the cash register? Not donating $1 after spending a totally of $80 at Wegmans today seemed like it would cruel not to, so I did. However, often times I simply look down and respond “Sorry, not today”.

There is a name for this type of charitable giving; it’s called checkout charity. I have wondered if this is an effective and positive approach to gaining donations for a cause. It is kind of an awkward way of gaining donations because if you just spent a large sum of money shopping, one more dollar obviously won’t hurt. Also if there are a bunch of people waiting behind you to check out and they see that you spent a lot of money and then the person checking you out loudly asks if you would like to donate, and you decline then it puts you in an uncomfortable situation and you feel trapped and judged. I think people should feel good about giving to charity, and not feel guilt-tripped into giving to a cause that in most cases they have little to no knowledge of.

I think of all my prior experiences of this happening to me. The rare times that I do decide to donate, I do not leave feeling as if I made any sort of difference and I do not feel anymore generous than I did before. I wonder if the charities hitting costumers up for donations really want to produce this sort of emotion in the costumers. I feel that the negative feeling of being solicited for money in a guilt worthy manner could result in a backlash, people will simply get better at saying no and go on with their days.

Although I am not fond of the approach, it seems like it’s a great way to reach the masses and get their money. I think I would feel more inclined to give if there was more information available about the organization asking for the money. I would also want to know where the money is going, is a sum of the money going to the store that is physically asking for donations, are the dollars being matched by the store.

http://www.causemarketingforum.com/site/c.bkLUKcOTLkK4E/b.8700727/k.B7F8/Americas_Chekcout_Charity_Champions_Download_Page.htm

(You have to press “click to access” and then put in your name, email and random company name. I just put “Binghamton University” as the company name. Then click download the study and lastly click infographic. Sorry about the process.)

The pdf above outlines the top campaigns that inspired consumers to donate at point of sale in 2012. In 2012, $358.4 million were raised by 63 million-dollar-plus campaigns. Ebay came in first, then Walmart and in third was McDonalds. Ebay accomplishes its donations online and the donations went towards over 22,00 nonprofits. Walmart raised donations by selling paper icon sales and lastly, McDonalds raised donations through its coin donation boxes near registers. The chart also shows which business sectors raised the most money.

I really like McDonalds approach towards raising donations because the person behind the register is not hounding the customer, and it’s easy to just put your leftover change in the coin boxes.

I was wondering if your thoughts on this approach to giving are. Do guys donate when asked at the cash register? If you do donate is it because you feel guilted into donating? Do you think this is an effective way to gain donations?

Paying Salaries

Many students in our class were hesitant to donate to groups that simply needed the funds for overhead costs and some seemed completely opposed to donating in order to pay salaries. While my group was selecting our finalist organizations, we briefly considered eliminating organizations that stated our money would go towards paying salaries. We reconsidered, though, and I am glad we did.

At first, I was very concerned about what an organization would use the money for. After all, $10,000 is a lot of money and I want to make sure it will be used effectively. However, during my group’s debate, my position changed. Should we even consider how the money would be spent? My view specifically began to change as we discussed the Wilson Children’s Center of Deposit. This group provided a specific outline of what they would spend the money on in their application. Among other things, their list included a “Bye Bye Buggy four seater”. No one in my group had any idea what this specific piece of equipment was (after searching online, it appears to be a type of stroller), but many members thought we should donate elsewhere because our money could be better spent. It was brought up in debate, though, that we are not experts in any of the fields that the organizations are serving. If a childcare center, like the Wilson Children’s Center, believes it needs a new stroller in order to improve its services, who are we to say that they should use the money differently? The leaders of the groups have a much better sense than we do of how they can use the money efficiently.

After coming to this realization, I reconsidered my stance on donating to help pay salaries. I found a very interesting TED Talk in which this idea is discussed. (http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong I realize it’s a bit long, but you only have to watch the first six minutes to hear about salaries!)

Dan Pallotta, the speaker in this TED Talk, brings up some very interesting points. In the for-profit sector, individuals are rewarded for producing more value by earning more money. However, people are opposed to the idea of using the incentive of money in the non-profit sector to encourage people to produce more in social service. Pallotta explains that we have no problem with people making a lot of money by NOT helping others, but we do not like the idea of individuals making a lot of money while working to help others. When phrased that way, it seems ridiculous.

Because individuals are not able to make a high salary in the non-profit sector, people must choose to work in the for-profit sector and do well for themselves or work in the non-profit sector and do good for the world. Pallotta states the decision is mutually exclusive; there is simply no way for people to do both. The lack of opportunity for a high salary discourages many incredibly bright and talented people from joining the non-profit sector. Instead, they often choose to earn lots of money in the for-profit sector, donate a bunch to charity, receive a tax deduction and be labeled a philanthropist because this is the cheaper and more personally rewarding option. Those who do chose to become CEOs of non-profit charities make an economic sacrifice, as they receive significantly less in compensation than their counterparts in the for-profit sector.

I am now completely supportive of donating to help pay the salaries of those doing good through non-profit charities. These are honorable people who chose to sacrifice the chance to make a large sum of money in order to help those who need it most. They deserve to be rewarded for the good they are doing. Without them, how would these non-profits accomplish their goals? If leaders and CEOs in the non-profit sector were paid higher salaries, a larger number of people would be willing to work in this area. Perhaps more talented individuals would join the non-profit sector and more effective techniques could be applied to make changes and solve the massive social issues non-profit organizations target.

I want to make sure that our money is being used effectively to help the causes we choose to support. I believe paying salaries is supporting the cause. Employees are passionate about making change and charities in the non-profit sector would fall apart without them. These workers need to support themselves and their families, though, before they can successfully help others. Receiving an appropriate salary will encourage them to continue working hard in order to make change.

How do you guys feel about organizations paying salaries with our grant money? Did your view change at all after watching the TED Talk? When making our decision, should we even consider how organizations are going to use our money or should we trust that they would use it effectively and focus more on the cause they are supporting?

Patriotic Giving

The government and the nonprofit sector are two separate entities. They coexist in the sense that the government hands out grants to nonprofits and nonprofits cover services that the government does not. The overwhelming majority of the time people give their money to the nonprofit sector. Rarely do people give directly to the government or to organizations that are strongly intertwined with the government, but it does happen.

One man who is known for doing this is billionaire David Rubenstein, who has given away approximately $300 million dollars, $200 million of which is going to government-related institutions (Smithsonian, etc.). The article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/us/a-billionaire-philanthropist-in-washington-whos-big-on-patriotic-giving.html?_r=0) gives a look at how and why Rubenstein has participated in “patriotic giving.”

Rubenstein makes it clear that the main reason that he chose to give a large chunk of his fortune to government-related institutions is because of the decrease in funding from the government. The institutions that he has donated to are largely art oriented or museums. We have gone back and forth in class whether or not these are the best donations that could be made. Personally, I do not believe that these are the best possible donations, as I would rather see it going towards hunger or alleviating poverty. However, these types of programs do need to receive funding from somewhere. If the government is not providing as much funding to these institutions should philanthropy be stepping in to make up the difference? Is this hurting society as a whole because money that could be going to causes that help end suffering? If donating to the arts and museums is not the best option, then is the situation worse if the arts and museums are government related?

 What I also found interesting in the article is that Rubenstein donates based largely on his instincts and gut reactions. He doesn’t pour over data to make his decisions and simply gives it away. Afterwards, he does not even require a follow up. This flies in the face of much of what we have established as “good” donation decision-making. Can Rubenstein and billionaires just give money away because of what their gut says because they have such a large sum of money? Or does the fact that he is giving to relatively credible and government-related organizations make it acceptable to do this? For me, especially considering the large amount of money being given away, this is a somewhat frightening process. Yes, it is simple and ‘efficient” as someone states in the article, but it is also very risky, no matter the organization.

I condone David Rubenstein for donating hundreds of millions dollars, I just don’t agree with his methods or where his is donating it to. I am curious where the other $100 million dollars of unpatriotic giving has gone.

Digital Philanthropy and the Impact on the Donor

In 2009 a study was done on Digital Philanthropy and titled the The Digital Future of Philanthropy: Engaging Donors with Online Video. I've posted the link below. It explains the reasons how an organizations use of the internet impacts a potential donor. 

http://twoparrot.com/jessica_kizorek_thedigitalfutureofphilanthropy_engagingdonorswithonlinevideo.pdf

In today's society, technology can make or break a donor's decision. The internet is a great way to connect. People can quickly search, it gives instant results an gratification. The study argues that when you can't provide people with what they are looking for they will move towards something else that. Isn't this true? When we were making our statement of interest form, we wanted a question to include the organization's website as well as any form of marketing via social media. It does play a huge role in determining who to donate to. People want to be able to find all the information online to be able to make an informed decision. 

The internet just provides so many ways to get the organization's message and word out. Not only does it make it easier to donate but it can save a lot of time. Websites and other multimedia outlets need to attract a donors attention as well as volunteers. The use of online videos is becoming a huge part of an organization because it can create an emotional connection as well as a relationship to the potential donor. Donors can hear about an organization from the people that are being impacted by that organization through videos. It connects the viewer with what is happening around the world and brings it home. It educates them, its effective and it helps to reassure a donor about the cause they are donating to. It creates an empathetic connection and a feeling that their donation is making a difference. Videos can capture moods, faces, voices and stories that pictures or text cannot. 

Being in this class I've seen how the internet is a key player in philanthropy. Tweeting each week requires me to do research online about choosing a topic to tweet about. Even doing research about a particular organization begins online. Its how I choose my finalists. I read the applications, picked the ones I liked best, and then went on their website to do more research to narrow it down. The internet can do so much for an organization. Seeing videos on the impact the organization is making can change the way I feel about an organization over another. When I see the impact they are making and that it is successful I trust that organization and want to donate. This makes me worry about organizations who are too small to create a website or advertise via social media. I feel as though those smaller organizations have less of an advantage and don't have the money to spend on creating and advertising via the internet. Would this affect the way you donate or think about an organization? For me, it would just make it harder to get the information but I would do my best to try. Technology is only expanding and improving. I'm fearful for the organizations that do not use the internet to get their message out because they can get lost in all the shuffle. 

What do you guys think? Does an organizations ability to provide a website impact your donation? Would you guys inquire more information about an organization if there wasn't a website? 

Government Involvement with Community Needs

Read these two brief articles on the Broome Developmental Center.

http://www.wbng.com/news/local/Speaking-out-against-closure-of-Broome-Developmental-Center-231680001.html

http://binghamton.twcnews.com/content/news/720882/new-concerns-raised-over-closing-of-broome-developmental-center/

Today in class it was brought up that many of the organizations that applied for our class’s grant seemed to address the issue of mental health and disability aid.  It also ties in with our assignment on community need.  Some argued that while it is a community need, it should not be addressed primarily because many are still without basic necessities.  I found this a very interesting and valid point.  I do agree that basic needs of shelter and food are very important.  However I still worry, because I believe the mental health and the health of people with disabilities in Broome County is still a major issue, and the community is still lacking the services and support that people really need.  If these problems were not present and in high demand in the community, so many organizations addressing the issues of mental health and disabilities.  I personally feel that mental health and disabilities should be addressed more because many people that are homeless have a disability or mental health issue.  If we can empower these vulnerable populations, we could possibly lower the rate of homelessness and unemployment in Broome County.  

In case you are unaware, the state government of New York is planning to close various developmental centers throughout the state, including the Broome Developmental Center.  This center serves over 150 patients.  Individuals with a varying developmental issues including schizophrenia to autism are served at the Broome Developmental Center.  The government wants to close the center so the patients can be integrated back into society and the patients that are not ready for this type of integration will be relocated to another center (Syracuse) or a group home.  It is controversial because around 700 people are employed by the Broome Developmental Center and the government feels the need to decrease funding.  

It seems reasonable to assume that by shutting down this center, only more problems will be created for the community.  I feel closing this center will be detrimental to all the people of the community because some of the patients in the center have committed sexual offenses.  There is an issue with them being registered as sex offenders because of the state of their mental health at the time of their conviction, and because of this they do not need to register where they live.  Obviously, patients like this are only a small portion of the patients in the center, but it is still a risk for the community.  Some of the government officials seem to believe that by getting rid of the center the issue will go away because the patients will either be living in group homes, relocated, or become part of the functioning society.  When in reality we cannot guess how these patients will adjust to a new environment.  Personally I don’t see how closing this center will be good for anyone including those who are comfortable and used to living at this center.  Maybe there are other options than completely closing the center, but rather cut back on some of the employees, but why stop a good thing?

• From reading the articles, what are your impressions from what the community wants?  
• What does the majority of the community focus on in the Developmental Center closing and why?  
• Do you think what they focus on is important?  
• What are your thoughts on the center closing?

This I Believe.. / Tweet of the Week Donation

            The first time that the dining room table and chairs were flipped over in a drunken rage, it came as a shock to me. By the fifth, sixth, twentieth time it happened, I didn’t even flinch. The night that the empty whiskey bottle sailed across the room, hitting the wall and cracking the plaster just inches to my left, I burst into tears and cowered in fear. Several months later when a snow globe, a gift from my Grandpa, met the same fate… I was too numb to care.

            As time went by, the occasional alcohol-fueled outburst morphed into daily intrusions upon my personal freedom and malicious verbal attacks. My debit card would disappear from my wallet, only to return a day or two later with a receipt that read, “Available Account Balance: $0.00.” I would suddenly hear the front door slam closed, and look out the window to see him driving off in my car. When outrageous, jealous accusations and venomous words spewed forth, I simply put my head down and waited for it to stop. For all of his emotional abuse, he never laid a hand on me. The first and only time that I feared physical harm from him was the day that I found the strength to walk away.            I remember that day with frightening clarity. I returned home from work approximately ten minutes later than usual, and had neglected to call and let him know. I walked into the door of the small apartment that we rented on Binghamton’s West Side, kicking off my sandals and dropping my purse at the door, mentally preparing myself for the bitter accusations about what I must have been doing with those unaccounted for minutes. I was met instead with a menacing glare and absolute silence. He stood up and walked towards me, an intimidating presence at 6’4’’. He brushed past me, still maintaining that glare, and reached for the purse I had dropped to the ground. He searched slowly and methodically until he found what he was looking for, pulling my car keys and my cellphone out and putting them into his pockets. In that moment, all I could think was, I am going to become a statistic. I am going to become a battered woman. Instinct kicked in and I ran, still barefoot, down the three flights of stairs and out the door of our apartment building. I walked to the closest convenience store and called my father, only managing to say to him, “Dad, I want to come home.” I never looked back.

This I believe, every individual will, at some point, have a life experience that shakes them to their core. This experience will strip away every belief they have ever held about themselves as a human being, their place in the world, and the values that they hold dear. Existing in, and ultimately leaving, a relationship built on a foundation of emotional abuse was that experience for me.

---

This is my story, and the experiences described above had a profound impact on the person that I am today. I'm fortunate that I had the strength to walk away, with the love and support from an incredible network of family and friends. Not everybody is so lucky, and millions of women end up feeling like they are stuck in abusive relationships, with no one to turn to for help.

For this reason, I am choosing to donate the Tweet of the Week winnings to RISE, a local agency that provides a wide variety of services to victims of domestic abuse. Last week, I was able to have a conversation with Rebecca Allerton, the executive director of RISE. During our talk, she explained some of the services that the agency provides, as well as a brief explanation of how they are funded.

RISE offers emergency shelter for women escaping violent situations. The shelter is set up to be as much like a home as possible, offering each resident / family their own bedroom and bathroom. The shelter has a maximum capacity of 20 occupants, and can include any combination of women and children. The shelter maintains a well stocked "mall", from which women can take clothes and other personal items for themselves or their children upon coming to the shelter. More often than not, people will arrive with only what they have on their backs.

RISE is not only a shelter, however. There are staff at RISE that assist in providing legal information, and help women in filing petitions with the family court. They accompany women to appointments and advocate for the women, many of whom do not know the ins and outs of the complicated legal system, and may not be able to properly advocate for their own safety. They often assist women in obtaining new identification and birth certificates, as abusers will take these documents as a way to control their victims. Advocacy services are not limited to women within the shelter, and are offered to anyone who reaches out for help. Often, if a woman does stay at the shelter for a period of time, advocacy services will continue long after she has left. The ultimate goal of RISE is to ensure that these women are able to be safe in their own homes after having left a violent situation.

RISE has a budget of approximately $900,000 per year. This is primarily through government funding and grants. There is also a system of per diem funding with the local Department of Social Services. When a women enters the shelter and stays for a night, RISE gets reimbursed through DSS. This per diem method of billing and reimbursement is inconsistent, however, because it is impossible to tell how many women will enter the shelter at any given time, and how long they will stay. Ms. Allerton did specify that much of the funding goes to paying salaries, as they cannot offer effective services without quality staff members to provide them.

I asked Ms. Allerton what impact a donation approximately $100 would make, as it is certainly not enough to fund a staff position for any length of time. She let me know that our donation would likely be used to buy items for the "mall".

Medical Philanthropy: The Best Thing Since Sliced Bread

This past week we had a few representatives from the Hope Dispensary come in and talk to us about the work that they do, and I found that what they had to say really resonated with me. The work that they are doing is outstanding and I think that providing medicine for those who cannot afford it is a wonderful thing. As an Integrative Neuroscience major I felt that the Hope Dispensary related to me, and it opened the door to a whole new realm of ideas that hadn’t crossed my mind prior. I think that we should all consider the great work that the Hope Dispensary does because it can be very tough for people to stay healthy and provide for their families if they can't even meet the basic need of sustaining their own health.

Taking what I had heard from the Hope Dispensary, I decided to look for other organizations that provide medical support for the less fortunate. African Steps is an organization from the UK that works to provide the people of Likoma Island in Malawi with free medicine that they desperately need. African Steps partners with the local hospital, St. Peter's, and provides supplies along with monetary support. African Steps has no administration costs so all of the money donated goes directly to the people in need. This is because the organization relies completely on volunteers alone, which is a very admirable trait. African Steps desperately needs help as they are always short on supplies and money, and I think that it is important to give them credit for all the great work that they are doing. I would highly consider giving a donation to them if I win the tweet of the week, because they represent the altruistic traits that I think every organization strives for, and that this class is teaching us to demonstrate. If you would like to check out their website here is the link: http://www.africansteps.org.uk/

Another wonderful medical institution that may be a bit more familiar is St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital. This organization is phenomenal as it works to fight catastrophic diseases, and it is accepting of all children in need, no matter what the condition or the ability to afford treatment. This organization not only works towards finding groundbreaking new treatments and potential cures for horrible diseases, but it also gives the children that are fighting intense battles against deadly diseases hope. Whenever I read stories about children that are fighting these diseases it is heartbreaking, but it is also truly inspiring how they continue to fight each and every day. Check out the St. Jude website: http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f87d4c2a71fca210VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

One example of how these children keep fighting can be seen from the Mardi Gras celebration that they had for the children at the hospital. The people working at the hospital really make the day special for the children. These workers support the children and help them forget about the struggle that they face just for a little. The willingness to never give up by these patients and the audacity that the workers show towards their jobs is one of the reasons I want to become a doctor. Inspiring hope in people is something that you can't put a price on. If you want to see the pictures from the Mardi Gras celebration here is the link: http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2be468fa7ec94410VgnVCM100000290115acRCRD&vgnextchannel=52977c0bd388d110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

So my question for all of you is do you think that medical philanthropy is as good as I see it? Are there flaws that I may not have pointed out? Do you think that there are other ideas that could be explored to improve the lives of those suffering from diseases? I challenge you to find an organization that you really support.