Last summer while I was laid low by a wrecked nervous system, a friend who is a legitimate social-media maven suggested turning to GoFundMe; the campaign didn’t quite make its $4000 goal, but the last installment on the hospital bill was only $3800 or so, so I figured I had no reason to complain.
There are, however, some ethical-ish questions raised by this practice:
Medical crowdfunding could have negative effects on equitable access to health care. The likelihood of a crowdfunding campaign reaching its funding goal may depend in part on factors such as the kind of treatment needed and the reason for the campaign. Differentiation by the popularity of the medical cause or sympathy for the recipient goes against principles of treating patients according to the severity of their medical needs or aiming for the greatest good in treatment. In other words, funding according to popularity runs against evidence-based attempts to use our health care funding as fairly and efficiently as possible.
I have always felt that I had more recognition than I could possibly deserve, so I can see this, maybe.
Other factors, such as the recipient’s physical appearance, social connections, ability to get media attention for the story, and online communication skills are also likely to affect a campaign’s success. If those characteristics are correlated with the recipient’s position in society, then medical crowdfunding will have a tendency to benefit mostly those who are already in a relatively advantaged position.
At this one, I shrug; life has always favored rich young pretty people, the sort who get mentioned in Vanity Fair sidebars while still in their twenties, and it would be silly to expect otherwise from their crowdfunding campaigns.
If we had a truly egalitarian healthcare system, perhaps some of these concerns would evaporate. But I think it’s a safe bet that other criticisms would arise, particularly among those who fancy themselves the Official Measurers of legally defined equality.