Charity Shmarity

Imagine you're walking across a park, and you see a child drowning in a pond. It's quite shallow, not bad enough for you to drown, but bad enough for the kid, and it's a bit muddy around the edge. What would you do? If you jumped in and saved the kid, you'd get your nice new suit muddy, and you might not be able to get it to that pristine white you liked so much. If you don't jump in, then surely the kid will drown. It's a reluctant no-brainer: the child is worth more than your suit. Surely the person who doesn't will face a sufficiant ammount of ostricisation. Your knowledge of the child edges you towards responsibility, and although you may ruin your suit, it's a small price to pay for the child (fair enough if you're a misanthropist though).

Why am I talking about this? Well, if you agreed with me that paying a small price is worth the life of a child, you may be in for a bit of trouble (just a bit) for your lifestyle). I now show you this*. It is estimated that 1 child dies of hunger every 6 seconds. That's 14,400 deaths a day, at least two or three 9/11s, and that's not even including other poverty related deaths. How does this relate to the child in the pond? Well, if you knew a child was dying, whether from a pond or a malnutrition related death, and in both cases you had the tools to save the child, even if it was just one, what's stopping you from intervening? You have a debit card, a source of income, even if you're a student, and a computer. Why not? The philosopher Peter Singer advocates donating between 1-30% of your income in allieviating extreme poverty. Maybe the 30% will come as a shock to you, but the 1% shouldn't. Sponsoring a child only costs three quid a week, I doubt you could defend keeping that as opposed to giving it to a greater cause.


So now you know. Research suggests that charitable giving increases the ammount of discussion around it (or vice-versa, I'm not sure)**. I'll point out that I've done my part, and I'm on benefits. I'll try to push the onus on you. £3 a week isn't that bad. So, what are you waiting for!

*Apparently the link won't show up, so here it is instead: http://www.wfp.org/1billion
**Yeah, I might grudgingly point out it might be due to less altruistic reasons, but a life saved is a life saved.

A little thought.

Pretty much any moral absolutist is a consequentialist in disguise. If I stabbed someone, it's the consequences, such as the feeling of pain and possibly death that matters and makes it wrong, as opposed to the act of stabbing. So really all that differs from us is how many degrees of consequence makes an action wrong.

Those italiased are to be deleted but serve as a template

Object

MyTherapy is a charity to subsidize costs for therapy for those in low-income households why are in a condition inflicted by mental health, so severe that waiting lists on public healthcare cannot wait. Those affected in mind may be those who have severe OCD, depression, bi-polar etc.


The charity will advertise mainly in Private Eye, for a period of six months encouraging readers to send £5 a month. After six months, if the monthly income for the charity is less than £1000, the charity will be discontinued unless justification can be produced which supports the continuation of the charity.

Powers
The charity will be operated through a website, mytherapy.org or mytherapy.org.uk.

•Visitors will submit an application form which’ll ask them for their name, address, income, the condition they think they have, an explanation of how it affects them and how it can’t wait to go on a waiting list.
•
•If approved, they will be sent to a psychotherapist. The first session will be 100% subsidized. If the psychotherapist decides there is a problem (and sends a letter confirming this), two more sessions will be funded at 80% of the initial cost.
•
•If significant progress has been made in these sessions, two more sessions will be funded at the same rate as before.
•
•Benefactors may be asked to respond to the effectivness opf MySociety.

Trustees
As of this point, I , J****h L***h will run the website, manage the funds etc.

•what happens if changes to the administrative provisions need to be made (amendment provision); and


Dissolution Provision

An online newsletter will be sent to those who donate informing them about the status of the charity and telling them to cease donating. The charity will cotinue to operate until it runs out of funds.

MyTherapy

Right, so MyTherapy is a charity idea developed about a month ago. The aim of the charity is to subsidise therapy costs for those who are in low income households who have a mental condition too extreme to be on waiting lists. Not that the NHS is doing a bad job content wise, but I remember my waiting list time tyo be three months, and that was horrific while I waited. That's the aim. In terms of fundraising, I think I'll advertise exclusivly through Private Eye. Their Eye Need section is pretty good. I posted a question on AskMetafilter about starting a charity and one sober response got me pretty good. Some highlights:

Running a charity is - at the very least - like running a complicated small business. It is a legal minefield where one wrong step won't blow you up, but may have you charged with fraud, or tax evasion, or worse.

Really, unless you're very experienced (in which case, no offence, but you wouldn't be askinf this question here), I strongly recommend finding a charity with similar goals, and donating your money or time to them. If you are serious, and have serious quantities of money or time, you will be taken seriously. You will be able to accomplish your goals with the protection (legal, financial, public), experience and resources of a much larger organisation.

I could go on,but most of the things I'm talking about are "soft" problems, rather than the "hard" legal, financial or regulatory issues that could scupper you.

Yeah, I may need help, and I think the idea would be pretty good, so...Help needed!