With this week’s reading and
video, a common theme of “managing to outcomes” was prevalent. This meant that
the organization was designed around achieving their intended results as
efficiently as possible. These ideas led me to examine the issue area that I am
most passionate about and the organizations that my family supports.
I am most passionate about
maintaining my own health, the health of my family, and that of others. This is
driven through two people in my family that have been affected by chronic
illnesses. The first is my brother Tommy, who has been living with Type I
Diabetes for about a year now. The second is my grandfather on my dad’s side,
who died of smoking related lung cancer before I was born. Because of these two
people, my family gives mainly to JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation)
and the American Cancer Society.
Looking at these two
organizations, the goals or outcomes are pretty clear – to find cures to the
respective illnesses. Neither can fit perfectly into the managing to outcomes
scheme. Ultimately, the money raised goes to researchers, and the indicators of
progress are determined by them as well. They can determine a model for giving,
but the data system and assessment are not solely their own.
This also makes me think about
the benefits and downsides of donating to organizations such as these. First of
all, you never really know that your money is going to make a difference until
a cure or better form of treatment (less invasive, fewer side effects, etc.) is
found. Realistically, we don’t know if cures to these illnesses will ever be found.
With cancer, for example, the division of cancer cells would have to be
stopped, while the division of normal cells is unaffected, which is a very
difficult thing to achieve. For diabetes, we’d need to repair the damage done
to the pancreas and prevent the immune system from attacking it again. So if we
give to these organizations with no idea of whether or not it will help the
situation at all, does that mean we have been unwise with our donations? Have
we been wasting money on dead ends while we could have been helping people
affected by poverty or hunger? But can we justify giving up on helping a large
group of people who die each year from these diseases, only because we believe
that there is no solution?
These are not easy questions to
answer, at least not for me. I think that any progress made is great, since it
gives people hope and encourages them to keep strong despite their
deteriorating health. I do not know if the money my family gives to these
organizations will eventually allow people to find cures, but we care strongly
enough to try anyway. In that way, the money is not wasted. If these goals are
deemed impossible to reach, it will definitely seem like we wasted a lot of our
time and money when we could have made a larger impact somewhere else.