All the World's a Stage, Act for Change

Comments on art, politics, and science.

Friday, January 07, 2005

Donations

Donating blood has always struck me as a remarkable example of the spirit of community. Sure in some places blood donations are paid, and there are shortages in almost all blood banks. But still there are tens of thousand of people that spend time and expend blood with no other payback than the reward of knowing they are allowing for the recovery or survival of a stranger. In some cases, the time expended is not small. For some time I did apheresis, a process done in certain blood banks whereby blood is extracted, centrifuged to separate different components (plasma, platelets, and white blood cells), certain components are collected and the remainder returned to the donors body. This cycle, extraction-centrifugation-return, occurs several times over a couple of hours. This way larger amounts of clotting factors can be donated, and more often, than if one were to extract those factors from the blood given in a regular donation. This is particularly important for premature babies, patients with weak immune systems, such as cancer patients, etc.

What is most striking about the generosity of blood donations is that it occurs continually. Publicity and constant reminders and appeals are the norm, but to be sustainable it relies on people coming in on a regular basis. It cannot depend upon waves of adherence driven by a catastrophe. Such mass responses have their merit as well. I was living on Long Island (New York) on 9/11, and a bunch of us from school felt we had to do something, and after supporting collections of water and blankets, we went that afternoon to Stony Brook University Hospital to donate blood. The Hospital was packed with likeminded people, and this was repeated nationwide. Sadly, we soon realized that given the characteristics of the attack there was no urgent need for blood. The banks urged people to come at a later date and expanded their contact list. (Some months later there was a shortage of blood again.) People also reacted strongly by donating money to several organizations.

I'm recalling all this in the aftermath of the Asian catastrophe provoked by the earthquake and tsunami of December 26th, 2004. The developed nations have responded with the promise of some $2 bn in aid. The point has been made that often these sort of pledges aren't kept, and struck nations are left hanging. In the US's case, a substantial contribution came only after considerable public pressure. GWBush, in his ranch in Crawford, Texas, slacked in giving the matter importance, then promised $15 million, then $35, then finally $350 million. Generous, but it corresponds to what the US spends in a day on its military occupation of Iraq.

Personal contributions to relief organizations that are active in afflicted areas have also been extensive. Thinking about the peaks of contributions led me back to the blood donations. How can one try to budget a more regular contribution to organizations, be they humanitarian, animal-rights, environmental, without it depending on catastrophic events claiming our attention, and wallet? Sure, one can wait for the envelope from Nature Conservancy with the pretty calendar, or from the local homeless shelter with address labels. Or wait for Christmas: I found it very satisfying to donate money to several organizations as Christmas gifts in the name of the person receiving the gift. Certainly more to the spirit of the season than buying the latest Eminem CD, or a new pair of socks. But that comes once a year, or the case of requests received at home does not require action on my part nor offer much in the way of choice on whom to give to. Which raises another issue I hear some people complain about: there are too many issues, too many organizations, I don't know who to trust. But this confusion, and a certain laziness to gather information and make choices should not keep us from donating. One can now get more information than ever about the work certain organization do. And if there are too many issues one can decide to give a generous contribution to an organization of greater breadth of activity, or give more modest contributions to a number of organizations with different activities (my personal favorite). The next question is, how much? There is no minimum, most organizations are happy to receive anything (and as much as) we might give them. So it usually comes down to, how much can afford? And her is the crux of the matter I wanted to write about, the difference between a catastrophe-driven contribution vs. a continual, budgeted contribution. Most of us to not include contributions, donations, charity in our personal or family budgets. (Those that do tend to think of them as tax-writeoffs, and this dictates the amount donated.) Without it being included in our yearly budget, when the time comes and we ask how much can I afford, it always seems one can't afford much, although the answer might be different if it were a therapeutic shopping spree at the mall. I'm suggesting one set aside a certain amount of income for donations per year, that it be included in one's budget (which may even not exclude certain extraordinary donations, or eventual adjustments in case of a budget crunch).

Well, how much to set aside? What is reasonable, without being cheap? I suggest one allocate 0.7% of one's budget to donations, coins in a coffee cup, and contributions. That's $84/year for every $1,000/year earned.

I didn't pull this number out of the air. This is the percentage of GNP (or as I gather some are starting to refer to as the GNI), the UN General Assembly in 1970 set as the target for nations to give as aid to developing nations. Most donor countries committed themselves to reaching this target, though not the US. Yet few have reached it (in 2002, Denmark 0.96%, Norway 0.89%, Sweden 0.83%, Netherlands 0.81% and Luxembourg 0.77%). Some G8 countries that assumed the target have declined in their support, as the UK from 0.51% in 1979 to 0.31% in 2002. See here for more on the 0.7% target campaign. Individuals should set an example, and take a small burden of the world as their responsibility. Everyday.

2 Comments:

  • At 6:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I've found that the easiest way to achieve these coins in coffee cup to accumulate them in just that manner. I don't spend the coins that I get as change, and at the end of the day, I dump them into a bowl. When the bowl is full, I take them to the bank and send an organization or two a check. I don't know if this gets me to 0.7% of my income, but it is a surprisingly large amount. And it is both satisfying and a dialy reminder to watch the coins pile up.

    -Dan Stoebel

     
  • At 8:51 PM, Blogger Mike the Mad Biologist said…

    Andre,

    it would be nice if the conservatives who constantly harp about personal responsibility and religion actually took the notion of the tithe seriously. I'll admit 10% of my income is a little steep (as I'm severly income challenged), but what's Bush's and Cheney's excuse?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home