Many organizations solicit private donations from
benefactors and philanthropists. Is
there a stadium in the country that does not bear the name of a prominent
donor? There are also anonymous donors
who are not cursed with egos that require their names to be emblazoned in giant
font on a building’s façade. But, most
donors want recognition which is often used as an incentive when soliciting the
donation.
Donors understandably receive perks and privileges that
ordinary folks will never be offered. If
you give a ton of money to a theater, you might receive prime season tickets as
a gift. If you make a sizable donation
to a symphony orchestra, you may be invited to a private event to meet the
conductor and leading musicians. If you
make a robust financial contribution to your city’s art museum, you won’t have
to worry about competing for limited tickets to view the visiting Picasso
exhibit. You may very well have your own
private tour.
There is nothing venal about any of this. If you give money, then you get stuff. But, sometimes this quid pro quo is improper
and unethical. For example, if I donate
to a campaign, and the candidate wins, am I entitled to a higher level of
constituent service? (Of course, this
example is hypothetical, as no politician would ever confer special favors to a
donor.)
The New York Times reported recently a donation scheme in my
own profession that I found to be ethically problematic. Hospitals across the country determine which
of its hospitalized patients are wealthy and then contact them asking for money,
sometimes while these folks are still in the hospital! The article states that physicians and nurses
– actual medical professionals – have played a role connecting patients with
hospital fund raisers.
First of all, there is an unseemliness to trolling through
public data on sick patients to ascertain their history of political donations
and property records to determine if they have sufficient net worth. This stealth review of data sounds more like the
skulduggery that we have all learned is part of Facebook’s culture. It is possible that a grateful
patient who is approached and then gives a mighty donation might not enjoy any
future special treatment from the institution.
But, it is also possible that the donor, like the example of a museum
donor I cited above, might be given a higher class of service. While we expect to reward donors to cultural
and educational institutions, would we condone a donor to a hospital receiving
special treatment which might include better medical care? Shouldn’t all patients receive the same level
of quality? Do you think it might be
possible that a donor would be more likely to get a private room, get access to
the best surgeon, get a complaint resolved expeditiously, get phone calls to
the hospital returned promptly or get better access to appointments after
hospital discharge? And, if a potential donor declined to contribute, particularly
if his doctor initiated the solicitation, might this affect the doctor-patient
relationship?
The MD Whistleblower Stadium
If you want to give your life meaning by donating to a
worthy endeavor, consider donating to this blog. Imagine the prestige and fulfillment of
having a post named after you.
Comments
Post a Comment