Dear Peter,

You have done it. First time you have written an article that I completely agree with. I am reminded of my aunt who would occasionally give me a present. It was always a contribution in my name given to the Polio League - a league I had no wish to play in.

Your penultimate sentence, "Life should not be mortgaged over to longevity." was very good.

You have in this article gone outside of your usual box. I hope you will continue to do so.

Dear David,
This is my usual box! My theological opinions are seamlessly continuous with these opinions.

The author does not appear to know much about medical research.
Most of this research is not involved in prolonging life as such, but in preventing painful or premature death.

I am assuming the author has used medications such as antibiotics in the past, or is using some preventative medications now.
These medications and others are available to us only after extensive research.

Art may well be a pleasurable pursuit, but no activities in life are so good if we don't have our health.
I will continue to give my charitable dollar for medical research, and be grateful it continues.

Excellent article, on a forgotten topic.

I notice that this article focuses on the relative merits of dollar donations to the arts and university chairs, Vs to medical research, much of which tales place within universities.

Let's cast the net wider. I respectfully suggest that social issues, such as homelessness or failed families and the environment have been overlooked. These, like the suggested goals of music and the arts also focus on improvement of life for the living as against building memorials in the form of multitudinous charities and research establishments to the diseases which afflicted those who have died.

As a long-standing member of a Rotary club, I am frequently reminded of the many "causes" which that organisation is asked to support with money. These far outweigh numerically those with objectives that are practical.

Off the top of my head, examples of the latter include:
Graffiti removal (26th October, perhaps national).
Respite care facilities for families with members requiring care.
Collection and repurposing of donated goods, either in Australia or to foreign communities, in conjunction with other community aid programs ("Donations in Kind").

Other organisations such as Landcare or the Men's Shed Movement are equally relevant examples with national reach and very small overheads.

Medical research charities lead an increasing clamor for money to be channelled through intermediaries, PR machines and rent-seekers.

I try to strike a balance between carefully targetted money donations and hands-on support.

Medical research charities are no worse or no better than any other charities.
At the end the day, it will always be a personal decision, depending on life experiences, about whom we give our charitable dollars to.

As I work in the health industry, I tend to see more of where the medical research money goes and how much it does help people.
I also donate to help domestic violence victims and the RSPCA.

It is far too expensive for most to give to multiple charities, so it is fortunate that we all have different priorities.

Susanonline: Yes and hear hear!
Rhrosty.

Whatever happened to "Christian Charity", Mr Sellick?

"There is a trade here, you give us money for medical research and we will give you hope."

That has to be the most cynical possible interpretation of a charitable gesture that I have ever heard. It may sound odd to you, but when I give money to a medical research charity, I consider that I am giving hope to someone else, not to me. I am not personally expecting a return on my investment at all - which may sound oddly to Mr Sellick, but was my previous understanding of the word "charity" in this context.

"Medical research should be funded but that funding should be decided by a peer review of people in the field."

Who are these people, exactly, and what is special about their field that they should be entrusted with such decisions?

Oh, I see...

"It is no good spending money on a disease if there are no researchers in the field or if there are no good ideas of approach"

But... surely, there would never be researchers, nor any good ideas, without funding?

"I know of one medical research foundation in Perth that owns a flash building but does no research."

I'm sure you do. But that is only a good reason to avoid sending money their way, not for stopping all medical charities dead in their tracks.

"... the religious disciplines that would have enabled a peaceful ending without the expense and the distress of treatment have been almost universally eroded."

How positively... mediaeval. Bring on the leeches, and the robed priest at the bedside.

A bad day at the office, Mr Sellick?

There are a number of questions concerning organisations which solicit money to fight diseases.

1. What proportion of collected funds goes to fund research on the disease and to support the sufferers of the disease and what proportion of collected funds goes for expenses and to line the pockets of those who run the organisation. I have heard a good rule of thumb is that no more than 5% of the amount collected should go for expenses.

2. It might be more worthwhile for general health to do basic research about immune systems and how the body works than to concentrate on a particular disease. Cures can come out of such research.

3. We could support research to establish the conditions where the need is greatest rather than direct our response to the condition which has the most effective public relations and advertising apparatus for fund raising.

4. Sanitation, education and other approaches for prevention of disease may do more for public health than direct medical efforts. Adequate sewerage systems did far more against typhoid than medical treatment ever did.