from the world's big
Is granting children's wishes cost-effective? A new study looks at Make-A-Wish.
Donating to the right charities can save lives.
- Make-A-Wish stories are heartwarming, but are they worth the cost?
- Effective donations to the right charities can save lives, even if they don't make for good reading.
- A recent study into the value of wishes on health care costs gives good news for everybody.
Remember Batkid? That adorable little cancer patient who saved San Francis— I mean, Gotham, from the Riddler and Penguin? Who had a whole article about him in the San Francisco Chronicle written by Clark Kent? Who reminded us that the world isn't all that bad?
His story is one of the more notable wishes granted by the famous Make-A-Wish Foundation; which turns charity donations into fantastic experiences for children with serious illnesses.
However, the question of if it is a worthy charity has been asked by no less a person than the philosopher and champion of effective altruism Professor Peter Singer. In his 2013 Washington Post op-ed, published in response to the Batkid event, he argues that Make-A-Wish is nice, but that the money really doesn't accomplish much and that we would do better to donate the money to other charities.
Effective Altruism is the downer who gets things done
While it might seem that only the most miserly or calloused individual could object to what Make-A-Wish does, Singer brings up an important point: our charity dollars can also save countless lives. As a utilitarian philosopher, Singer has argued that we have an obligation to donate what we can to help others — and he puts his money where his mouth his. He's the founder of the nonprofit The Life You Can Save, which helps fight extreme poverty and its effects.
How we invest our donations is a vital question that costs lives when it is answered incorrectly. As he puts it in his Op-ed:
"The average cost of realizing the wish of a child with a life-threatening illness is $7,500. That sum, if donated to the Against Malaria Foundation and used to provide bed nets to families in malaria-prone regions, could save the lives of at least two or three children (and that's a conservative estimate). If donated to the Fistula Foundation, it could pay for surgeries for approximately 17 young mothers who, without that assistance, will be unable to prevent their bodily wastes from leaking through their vaginas and hence are likely to be outcasts for the rest of their lives. If donated to the Seva Foundation to treat trachoma and other common causes of blindness in developing countries, it could protect 100 children from losing their sight as they grow older."
The cost has gone up since Singer's article and is now $10,130. So, the question is even more pressing.
So, is Make A Wish worth the cost?
As it happens, a study diving into that very question was published in Pediatric Research in October of 2018. Four hundred and ninety-six patients who got their wishes granted were compared to 496 "control" patients who weren't involved with the program. The two groups had similar age and gender demographics and all the patients had similar diseases. The researchers followed the patients for two years and measured the "hospital utilization," in this case defined as "visits to primary, urgent, emergent care, and planned/unplanned inpatient hospitalizations," of every patient.
The results were surprisingly good. Patients who received wishes used fewer hospital services than those who did not. The savings as a result of this were determined to be higher than the cost of a wish, making the program cost-effective.
Now, the study isn't without issues. For starters, it isn't randomized. Secondly, it doesn't directly approach the question of hospital admissions but rather plays around with a binary variable of "has fewer admissions" and "does not have fewer admissions" and then works from there. Similarly, the study doesn't directly estimate if the total cost of wishes is more or less than the expected savings.
Speaking to Vox, Professor Andrew Gelman of Columbia University took issue with some of the researchers' methods and explained, "The practice of discretizing variables is common in medical statistics, and I think it's generally a bad idea."
Lastly, while it demonstrates that the events are good for more than just fun outings and feel-good news stories, this study does not answer the question posed by Peter Singer and others on if we should donate to Make-A-Wish before some other charity, though it does provide data for use in the discussion.
There you have it, wishes work. While the question of if the effectiveness of the wishes outweighs the value of donating to a charity that will directly save lives at a much lower cost remains to be settled, we can know that the heartwarming stories of ill children having a day of unrivaled fun aren't without medical benefit.
Ever since we've had the technology, we've looked to the stars in search of alien life. It's assumed that we're looking because we want to find other life in the universe, but what if we're looking to make sure there isn't any?
Here's an equation, and a rather distressing one at that: N = R* × fP × ne × f1 × fi × fc × L. It's the Drake equation, and it describes the number of alien civilizations in our galaxy with whom we might be able to communicate. Its terms correspond to values such as the fraction of stars with planets, the fraction of planets on which life could emerge, the fraction of planets that can support intelligent life, and so on. Using conservative estimates, the minimum result of this equation is 20. There ought to be 20 intelligent alien civilizations in the Milky Way that we can contact and who can contact us. But there aren't any.
Frequent shopping for single items adds to our carbon footprint.
- A new study shows e-commerce sites like Amazon leave larger greenhouse gas footprints than retail stores.
- Ordering online from retail stores has an even smaller footprint than going to the store yourself.
- Greening efforts by major e-commerce sites won't curb wasteful consumer habits. Consolidating online orders can make a difference.
A pile of recycled cardboard sits on the ground at Recology's Recycle Central on January 4, 2018 in San Francisco, California.
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images<p>A large part of the reason is speed. In a competitive market, pure players use the equation, <em>speed + convenience</em>, to drive adoption. This is especially relevant to the "last mile" GHG footprint: the distance between the distribution center and the consumer.</p><p>Interestingly, the smallest GHG footprint occurs when you order directly from a physical store—even smaller than going there yourself. Pure players, such as Amazon, are the greatest offenders. Variables like geographic location matter; the team looked at shopping in the UK, the US, China, and the Netherlands. </p><p>Sadegh Shahmohammadi, a PhD student at the Netherlands' Radboud University and corresponding author of the paper, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/tech/greenhouse-gas-emissions-retail/index.html" target="_blank">says</a> the above "pattern holds true in countries where people mostly drive. It really depends on the country and consumer behavior there."</p><p>The researchers write that this year-and-a-half long study pushes back on previous research that claims online shopping to be better in terms of GHG footprints.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"They have, however, compared the GHG emissions per shopping event and did not consider the link between the retail channels and the basket size, which leads to a different conclusion than that of the current study."</p><p>Online retail is where convenience trumps environment: people tend to order one item at a time when shopping on pure player sites, whereas they stock up on multiple items when visiting a store. Consumers will sometimes order a number of separate items over the course of a week rather than making one trip to purchase everything they need. </p><p>While greening efforts by online retailers are important, until a shift in consumer attitude changes, the current carbon footprint will be a hard obstacle to overcome. Amazon is trying to have it both ways—carbon-free and convenience addicted—and the math isn't adding up. If you need to order things, do it online, but try to consolidate your purchases as much as possible.</p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
Chronic irregular sleep in children was associated with psychotic experiences in adolescence, according to a recent study out of the University of Birmingham's School of Psychology.