::  Posts  ::  RSS  ::  ◂◂RSS  ::  Contact

Single Issue Charities

March 2nd, 2012
giving  [html]
Last night Julia and I went to hear Paul Farmer speak at Harvard. He cofounded Partners in Health and spoke last night primarily about its work in Haiti. With their programs in various countries they provide high quality modern medicine to people who would otherwise have access to minimal or no medical care. This includes public health, hospitals, clinics, nursing schools, and more. During the question and answer period I asked what he thought of single issue charities, where you try to find the most cost effective intervention, such as deworming or distributing anti-malarial nets, and just do that.

Dr. Farmer's answer was that in order to solve the problems of the developing world and break the cycle of poverty you can't just do one thing, no matter how cost effective it is. If all you're doing is distributing mosquito nets, what are you going to do if someone comes to you with a broken arm? What about AIDS? Clean water?

He is an expert in this field, and I have a lot of respect for him, but I don't think he's right here. No matter what intervention or combination of interventions you choose, you're not going to help everyone. When you build full hospitals you can provide very good care to some people, but others who are too far away or beyond the capacity of your hospital will have the same low quality options as before. A commitment to provide first-world care, to the extent that you include expensive treatments, is a commitment to helping fewer people.

At any level of funding below "full global healthcare system", choosing to do something other than the most cost effective interventions [1] means more people suffering and dying.

(Holden Karnofsky at GiveWell covered some of the same issues in his post Denying the Choice.)


[1] In terms of cost per death averted, QALY/DALY, or whatever metric you want. Any reasonable choice here puts mosquito nets above anti-retroviral therapy and them both well above training seeing-eye dogs. Cost effectiveness is not limited to medical interventions, though they are easier to evaluate: public health, education, road building, (conditional) cash transfers, and job creation also have positive effects and we do best to work on whichever has the best marginal impact.

Comment via: google plus, facebook

Recent posts on blogs I like:

Live the questions now

Here’s some advice that my Godmother, Lynne Caldwell, gave me a few years ago. I found it again the other day and it struck me that at least I understand its wisdom now. She really did get my problem. It feels like he’s speaking directly to me. It’s from …

via Holly Elmore January 23, 2020

International Links: a Revision

In 2011, I wrote a post arguing that international links underperform. I gave examples, using many links nearly all of which have rotted in the 8.5 years since, showing that the ridership on various air and rail city pairs was lower if they were in two di…

via Pedestrian Observations January 22, 2020

Algorithms interviews: theory vs. practice

When I ask people at trendy big tech companies why algorithms quizzes are mandatory, the most common answer I get is something like "we have so much scale, we can't afford to have someone accidentally write an O(n^2) algorithm and bring the site d…

via Posts on Dan Luu January 5, 2020

more     (via openring)

More Posts:


  ::  Posts  ::  RSS  ::  ◂◂RSS  ::  Contact