MND and stuff
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests Registered Users: None |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
Post subject: MND and stuff | |
|
I expect I'll be condemned by many of my fellow Nicksters for saying this, but I dislike all celebrity charity campaigns. Of course I think we should do more to find a cure for MND, just as we should for a host of other terrible diseases.
However, just because a public figure is afflicted, whether its (the incredibly brave) Neal Daniher or Glen McGrath's former wife, I resent the distortion of attention and resources being directed to these issues, when there are a whole range of possibly more deserving (of resources) health issues.
Let's ensure that this nation properly funds health care, including health research, and then let the experts (not the mob) allocate resources accordingly.
I've had my rant and now I'll crawl under my wet blanket. |
|
|
|
|
thesoretoothsayer
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
|
Post subject: | |
|
There are two separate issues here.
1. Celebrity advocacy of a worthwhile cause.
These things are good.
They get the public to contribute money to causes (e.g. MND) that they would never have thought to donate too.
2. Politicians pledging public money to a cause based on PR rather than need.
This, of course, is bad.
It, unfortunately, happens all the time. Especially when an election is due. |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
I guess my concern is that a particular charity becomes 'more worthy' than others when a celebrity embraces it.
For instance, I have heard medical scientists bemoaning the fact that the 'McGrath Foundation' has had the effect of diverting resources away from other areas of, arguably more important, need.
There are many areas of medical science in urgent need of funding, but they are not necessarily 'sexy' enough to attract public attention.
I'd much rather a panel of medical scientists make these important decisions, than a bunch of footy jocks.
But that aint the world we live in I guess. |
|
|
|
|
BazBoy
Joined: 11 Sep 2014
|
Post subject: | |
|
When Geo.Adams imported Tattersalls from Tasmania to Victoria in the 1950,s the Victorian State Gov. came out with this statement as if to justify it
“The Victorian Government will recieve a levy from Tattersalls which it is expected to eliminate charity appeals comepletely”
And again in the 70,s Tattslotto arrive with the same blurb but of course the two decades between these event and currently we still have a plethora of appeals _________________ I'm not arguing--just explaining why i am right |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
Firstly, credit to you for thinking outside nodding convention.
On the topic itself, I suspect it is harmless to lightly positive, to be honest.
There is no “proper” level of government funding for medical research, let alone for MND within the overall med res budget. How much we spend on med res, vs in-home nursing support, education, defence etc is largely a matter of political and bureaucratic convention. Campaigns like this alter the convention, partly by bringing a little more dedicated public money into the total spend, and partly by pressuring funds from other government priorities to MND.
To the extent it brings in money in that would otherwise be spent at Crown Casino, or be saved by wealthy individuals, or spent on sugary drinks, etc then the freeze campaign is a net good. But it’s very nearly impossible to know that. To the extent it forces money from other areas it may do harm, but it’s also impossible to know that. We are dealing with Rumsfeld’s “unknowns”, here.
I suspect the only certain benefits of the campaign are that it has given one sufferer of this very dreadful disease a meaning and purpose, and raised public awareness of the plight of those who have it. At a minimum, I don’t see how that can be a bad thing.... as long as it doesn’t help Melbourne win.
But you are right, in that this campaign is less obviously positive than might be blithely assumed. Good that someone had the perception to question it. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I agree completely with your sentiments, Rudeboy, though with the caveat that it may not be a zero-sum thing: perhaps the Queen’s Birthday MND campaign isn’t really taking anything else’s place in terms of public awareness or funding. If that’s the case, then I think it’s a good thing. If not (and it’s true that there’s not a limitless bucket of funds for disease research, and nor an unlimited supply of public interest in charitable giving), then I totally share your dismay at the prioritisation of celebrity campaigns regardless of actual community need.
(Edit: I can see that Mugwump has expressed more or less the same sentiments more eloquently above. What ‘e said!)
Celebrity-led charities, on the other hand, I look on with deep suspicion, and reckon that, more often than not, they’re dodgy money-making and/or easy PR schemes. Just look at the Shane Warne foundation. Charity, not patriotism, is the real last refuge of the scoundrel. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
^
Is there a big difference between the two though?
Warne set up a foundation which raised money for different causes.
The Daniher led MND campaign also raises money for a foundation which then apportions that money to research, as does carrie bickmores brain cancer foundation and the Reiwoldt cousins Maddies vision.
I have some empathy for Rudies viewpoint, but tend to agree more wth you and Mugwump. Funding toward research rarely goes to the greatest need, from my understanding it's far more aligned with "flavour of the month", whether that be lead by celebrity foundations or the various lobby groups all agitating for funding _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Discretionary expenditure influenced by fashion? I don't believe it. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Location: The 18
|
Post subject: | |
|
There isn't a cure for this disease and we need to find one.
It's pretty simple really and a celebrity or in this case a football identity using his terminal illness to raise money and awareness in the hope of fast tracking medical advancement that will aid others is a noble use of fame I would have thought.
Honestly, some of you. _________________ He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
I agree swoop. Pisses me off that the umps last year seemed to get swept away, but I still by a freeze hat every year. My first job at GMH, we were all friends, stayed in contact, one if the guys was diagnosed with this horrid disease, a stroppy fit healthy nice guy, he lasted just 12 months, and died a horrible tortured death. Whatever it takes. _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|