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.