Post by cattledogkisses on Aug 28, 2014 9:52:57 GMT -5
Infographic Shows The Differences Between The Diseases We Donate To, And The Diseases That Kill Us
Julia Belluz created the infographic below to compare how much money is donated to fight various disease and how many people in the USA die from those same diseases for an article in Vox.
The graphic has since developed a bit of a life of its own. Belluz uses it to critique celebrity-driven campaigns for rare diseases such as the ice bucket challenge for ALS, compared to more frequent, but less glamorous conditions
The discrepancy the graphic is pretty striking, and certainly worth thinking about, but it's hardly the last word. For example, HIV may not be a major killer of Americans, but the people donating are probably concerned about the devastation it wrecks globally. IIndeed the article quotes 80,000 hours founder William MacAskill saying, "Donating money to the best developing world health charities will reach at least 100 times as many people than if you donate to developed world health causes."
Its also relevant to think not just about numbers of deaths, but numbers of years lost. It is understandable that people will treat a disease that kills children more seriously than one that most affects people who are nearing the end of their lives.
Timing is also an issue. The figures Belluz uses from the Centers for Disease Control for 2011, but things can change. Back when the AIDS epidemic was just taking off some critics said too much funding was being directed to it for the relatively paltry deaths. Possibly motivated by homophobia, they ignored the fact that death rates were rising – and the donations reflected the future danger, as much as the deaths at the time.
Its certainly good to think about the way your donations can have the most impact, and if you're looking for help with that there are some great websites available. In particular, while all charities have overheads, some deliver a much, much larger proportion of the dollars they receive to where it can make a difference than others.
However, high profile events like the ice-bucket challenge tend to disguise how little relatively wealthy people actually give away on average. If we spent as much on fighting disease as we do on bottled water to pick just one example, we'd have beaten most of these long ago.
I would also be curious to see how much donations make up in terms of total research dollars spent. It may be that there is more public funding for some diseases (e.g., heart disease) and therefore there is a perception that fewer donations are necessary. Or I could be totally wrong.
Post by captainobvious on Aug 28, 2014 10:32:50 GMT -5
Am I reading the graphic correctly that they chose one campaign for each disease (Ice bucket challenge, ride for aids) rather than the total donation to all like organizations?
I'm surprised people donate so much to prostate cancer.
I'm not really surprised by the rest of it--people aren't as sympathetic to heart disease, COPD and diabetes--you know, the smokers and fatties bring that on themselves.
I agree with most of the criticism here and will add that a lot of the higher mortality diseases already have a fair amount of funding through pharmaceutical companies. If something like heart disease impacts a huge percentage of the population, research should be profitable. It's the less frequent or medically complex disease that need private contributions to make a real difference.
Post by mominatrix on Aug 28, 2014 10:53:07 GMT -5
I wish there was a better way to express this very real problem. Making so much disease research money be charity dependent has real ramifications.
My dad died of a disease that kills as many people as breast cancer annually; the diagnosis pretty much has a 100% fatality rate in 3-5 years, barring a lung transplant. It has no FDA approved treatment, never mind a cure. Nobody even knows what causes it (hence the name, Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis... The "Idiopathic" is for "we don't know the first fucking thing about this disease")... The research dollars - worse than minimal.
A huge problem is that, because it's a lung disease, it MUST be related to smoking. Cept it's not.
Research money goes to diseases with already well funded organizations, who come up with splashy sexy slogans. I'm not begrudging people's ability to donate, but everybody sees the pink stand mixer and feels good about donating to a cause... But there's so much more to it than that.
I don't even know what I'm saying here (and my laptop is on the fritz, so I'm doing it from my phone)...
Am I reading the graphic correctly that they chose one campaign for each disease (Ice bucket challenge, ride for aids) rather than the total donation to all like organizations?
yeah this infographic is done really poorly. Not to mention that over $50 million has been raised through the Ice Bucket challenge by now so this infographic is already outdated.
I just can't get behind shaming anyone for being philanthropic, like pixy said. I find the shaming to be kind of distasteful, frankly. If you don't like a certain cause - then don't give. But I don't like this "my cause is better than your cause" thing that is going on now.
You know, I just hate people hatin' on the ice bucket challenges. My close friend was diagnosed at 20. TWENTY. He was given 3-5 years to live. At 20.
He lived 15. Although after 2 he could barely talk. After 3 he couldn't walk. After 5 he couldn't walk, talk, or move below his bottom lip. After 10 he couldn't move below his top lip.
He lived in a body that felt hot/cold/itchy/hungry/thirsty/etc. and couldn't respond to any of it. He had to wait for someone to care if he needed something, blink, twitch, and signal letters to spell out words to say what he needed.
He had to lay there and hear people raise their voices and talk to him slowly like he was demented. He had to sit there and let drool spill out of his mouth because he couldn't swallow.
His life was fucking hell for 12 of his last 15 years. PS that is ages 23 through 35. He died 2 years ago. His entire adult life was about ALS and unless you knew him I couldn't get people to feel SHIT about the disease.
Good on ALS researchers for having an unprecedented $50m in funds. Maybe the clinical trials will have some research support. Maybe patients can "check out" some communication devices from ALSA so they can communicate while they are here. I'm glad ALSA has a real fucking problem in figuring out what to do with all that money. It is about fucking time.
It isn't a huge killer in comparison to # of deaths per year. But I would rather be set on fire and die an excrutiating death over minutes than die a slow painful death over years trapped in an immovable body with 100% mental faculty so I know what exactly the fuck is going on around me but cannot respond to it without serious assistance.
I would also be curious to see how much donations make up in terms of total research dollars spent. It may be that there is more public funding for some diseases (e.g., heart disease) and therefore there is a perception that fewer donations are necessary. Or I could be totally wrong.
When I studied lung cancer we definitely benefited from some of the technology developed to study breast cancer
Maybe this is a silly question but is heart disease really a singular thing? I mean I thought it was one of those things that was the end result of a wide variety of potential causes. I dunno if I'm making sense but it seems like a funny thing to lump together in one mass that you'd donate to to cute of. Same thing for suicide. I dunno that you'd donate "to cure suicide" but you might donate to certain mental illness treatment or awareness efforts or crisis centers.
I wish there was a better way to express this very real problem. Making so much disease research money be charity dependent has real ramifications.
My dad died of a disease that kills as many people as breast cancer annually; the diagnosis pretty much has a 100% fatality rate in 3-5 years, barring a lung transplant. It has no FDA approved treatment, never mind a cure. Nobody even knows what causes it (hence the name, Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis... The "Idiopathic" is for "we don't know the first fucking thing about this disease")... The research dollars - worse than minimal.
A huge problem is that, because it's a lung disease, it MUST be related to smoking. Cept it's not.
Research money goes to diseases with already well funded organizations, who come up with splashy sexy slogans. I'm not begrudging people's ability to donate, but everybody sees the pink stand mixer and feels good about donating to a cause... But there's so much more to it than that.
I don't even know what I'm saying here (and my laptop is on the fritz, so I'm doing it from my phone)...
I get what you are saying. My mom died of a thyroid cancer that has no treatment available. It also has a pretty much 100% fatality rate and no research dollars. It sucks.
Am I reading the graphic correctly that they chose one campaign for each disease (Ice bucket challenge, ride for aids) rather than the total donation to all like organizations?
That was my big issue. You can't compare Jump Rope for Heart (single elementary kids raising money from getting pledges from family) to the massive effort that is SGK Race for the Cure (teams of adults getting pledges from a much larger network than the average 3rd grader).
The other point is, maybe the reason that fewer people are dying from the groups that get the most funding is that THEY GET FUNDING.
I would also be curious to see how much donations make up in terms of total research dollars spent. It may be that there is more public funding for some diseases (e.g., heart disease) and therefore there is a perception that fewer donations are necessary. Or I could be totally wrong.
When I studied lung cancer we definitely benefited from some of the technology developed to study breast cancer
That's a great point. I have no idea how private donations are typically divy'd up, but I can imagine a lot of basic research being applicable to more than just one disease.
This also assumes that people are only donating to issues that have a mortality rate at all. We give our charity dollars to autism organizations. That doesn't meet the criteria here.