“When you wish upon a star…it depends how sick you are!”
This one is so convoluted with cross-cutting issues that I’m not going to even try to make the call until I read some responses.
McKenna May is four-years-old and has survived leukemia. Her mother and grandmother submitted her wish to go to Walt Disney World to the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which, according to its mission statement, selects children with life-threatening medical conditions and grants their wishes. McKenna’s wish was granted by the charity, but then withdrawn because her father, William May, who is divorced from McKenna’s mother, refused to sign the required approvals. He believes that the Make-A-Wish funds should be spent on children who are terminally ill, and not children like McKenna, who have been cured. McKenna’s mother, Whitney Hughes, says that the real reason May has killed his daughter’s dream is to punish Hughes for restricting his visiting rights.
Your Ethics Alarms Quiz Question:
Assuming May is not doing so out of spite, is his decision to pass up his daughter’s dream trip to the Mouse Kingdom so that a more needy child can be helped an altruistic and noble gesture, or an unethical act of disloyalty and betrayal to his young daughter?
Interestingly, the Make-A-Wish Foundation’s regional CEO says that McKenna does qualify, because “She’s been through a lot.” Funny, I don’t see the organization’s mission saying anything about granting the wishes of “kids who have been through a lot.” I thought that wishes were granted only to very sick children, if not those who were terminal, then at least those who were very seriously ill. Now the foundation is saying that children in the pink of health, facing a long and full life, are eligible to use the funds in place of a child who is terminally ill? Or was this wish just granted during a slow period?
Still, if the charity that does this as its primary mission has determined that McKenna is eligible for a Disney World trip, who is William May to challenge its judgment? Does he, as a stranger, have a higher ethical duty to theoretical Make-A-Wish applicants who might be denied their wish despite being sicker than his daughter than he does as a father, to his own little girl? Or is he that rare ethical being, a man who can put aside his own conflicts of interest to do what’s right, and look out for those truly sick children even at the price of his daughter’s dream? Is he courageous, or is he disloyal?
I must confess, my inner Bill James tendencies have me close to pronouncing the father as ethically admirable. Then there is this wrinkle: exploiting the negative publicity about William May’s veto, McKenna’s mother is mounting a public appeal for contributions to send her daughter to Disney World.
In a word, blecch!
This is begging at its worst, and an abuse of charity. Why should anyone be asked to pay for a family vacation? If McKenna is going to live a long life, shouldn’t the family be saving for her college education? Is giving money to a healthy young girl so she can ride on Space Mountain really a responsible use of a public appeal for charity? And if it isn’t, doesn’t this suggest that William May is right?
_________________________________________
Facts: The Sentinel Tribune
Graphic: Living Cinema
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Assuming no truly truly terminal/extremely sick children are denied, it’s Make-A-Wish’s decision how to spend their funds. If, knowing the girl is now healthy, they want to give her the trip anyway, then so be it. Of course, their present and future contributors need to know that “life-threatening” now apparently equals “been through a lot.” And if any child who better fits the criteria by which Make-a-Wish purports to operate misses out, then the foundation has much to answer for.
It was the father’s ethical obligation to tell them about the true state of his daughter’s health. He did, and he gets big points for that. Having done so, however, he’s quite likely just being a jerk if he denies his daughter the trip. We can’t simply “assume” he’s not being spiteful, because he very might be.
The mother? You’re right: blecch.
Apologies for the double “truly.”
This seems like a drastic case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Maybe.
I agree pretty much with Rick.
At the start, the father had an ethical obligation to refuse the trip because the girl’s situation had changed. Now that Make-a-Wish has acknowledged her updated state and still desires to provide the trip, the father’s rationale has been negated and he’ll need a new reason if he doesn’t want her to participate. If he comes up with one, we’ll have some insight about his ulterior motives. If he doesn’t come up with one, we’ll have some insight to the lack of ulterior motives.
I don’t know that I’d neccessarily say McKenna is “perfectly healthy.” She is in remission. Cancer has been known to relapse often, even after many years. Even if it never relapses, she won’t be declared “cancer free” for a number of years. She also probably wouldn’t have gotten doctor’s approval to go when she was on chemo since that destroys the immune system and children undergoing those treatments can’t be out in public. Personally, I think the father is being spiteful. The organization also claims they won’t turn away any child so no one extra will get a trip if this girl doesn’t go on hers.
How is that possible, not to turn down any child? Any child who has “been through a lot?” Any child who applies? That’s ridiculous on its face. They don’t give wishes to every kid who applies; The Foundation’s resources aren’t limitless.
Any child who qualifies gets a wish. From their website, they even say:
My child is doing well right now. If my child receives a wish, will he or she be taking it away from someone who really needs it?
Make-A-Wish has never turned away a child who is eligible for our program. Every child who qualifies will have his or her wish fulfilled. Make-A-Wish does not “select” children. Your child’s participation will not prevent another child from receiving a wish.
I can’t tell. If the father really is doing this as a matter of principle, then I’m behind. If Komen for the Cure decided to give me money even after I told them that I have absolutely 0 connection to anything cancer related, it absolutely would be the ethical thing to turn down the money. The ethical duty isn’t just to the organization and people who actual meet the advertised qualifications, it’s also to all the people that donated to the charity expecting them to keep their word.
Ethics Hero: The dad.
Ethics Dunces: The mother and the Make-a-Wish foundation
Now, if the father is doing this to spite his ex, the calculation changes:
Ethics Dunces: The dad, the mother, and the Make-a-Wish foundation.
I agree that William May’s actions are admirable if we assume they weren’t motivated by spite. I also believe that it is uniquely the parent’s responsibility to take such action in a situation like this. Make-A-Wish would be pretty callous to withdraw a wish just because the child was cured while the paperwork was being processed. And it’s better PR for them to issue a statement to the effect that they’d still like to give the child that gift, even if behind closed doors their executives are saying, “Yeah, this is technically not in the spirit of what we do here.” It has to be the parent that says “thanks but no thanks” when it turns out that their child no longer needs the charity. And it’s quite awful of the mother to specifically undermine that decision and act as though they are still entitled to a trip to Disney World. Even if the father is acting out of spite, his stated rationale is absolutely correct, and the former Mrs. May ought to recognize that.
It looks like they were never married and the mother actually has sole legal custody. The father has limited visitation and the courts only granted it recently.
I can’t help being suspicious of May, without being more sure about what are his responsibilities toward his daughter. I think he’s using the ideal to be a poorly camouflaged enemy of the good.
The mother has NO excuse to panhandle for pity like she is doing.
If the mother had lied about her child’s health to go to disney then ok, ethic police swarm in. Do you really think the dad is making this decision due to some inner moral duty? You probably also think fox news is fair and balanced. Dad is just being a spiteful scum bag. If he had in his response said ill take her on my dime, save the MAW money for some other kid, then ethical dad of the year indeed. But truly this guy is obviously a tool, a douche bag, a loser, spiteful, and oh yes a bad dad. Surprising some of the responses actually believed in the nobility of the guy. Step away from your computer desk and open the door. That bright thing in the sky is the sun! Been inside too long i guess. Rack me im out.
I’m still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with Fox News…
What strikes me, Jack, are two things:
1. The charity is violating its own rules. The main reason people give to Make-A-Wish is because of its mission statement. It is reasonable to assume that absent this raison d’être, people would not be as generous with their money when it comes to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. That has to matter.
While it’s true that they are the ultimate arbiters of their charitable gifts, I find that in this case, they have done something ethically wrong — denied a more needy child that actually meets their criteria in favor of one that has “been through a lot.” I can’t see that as ethically acceptable, assuming as we must that the charity’s funds are not effectively limitless with respect to their mission.
2. Knowing that, William May (assuming, as you have asked, that he is not influenced by other unsavory motivations) is faced with an ethical dilemma — he must either be a willing participant in the unethical denial of a wish to a deserving child, the only criteria for which is spelled out in writing by MAW’s mission statement, or deny his own child (who is manifestly unqualified, although no doubt deserving) her wish.
That’s a tough one, no doubt, but then there is this consideration — a trip to Walt Disney World, absent the “deluxe package,” is just not that costly. Surely he or the mother could have obtained the necessary means by way of a loan or gifts from friends and family to grant this wish. The little girl doesn’t care about staying in the best hotel rooms, she just wants to see Mickey and Minnie and Pluto.
So I guess I find that his position is more defensible, although not without substantial reservations. Cold ethics analysis is small consolation when you are talking about breaking the warm, innocent heart of a small child who happens to be your own flesh and blood.
Should a father participate in an unethical scheme that favors his daughter but sacrifices the wish of a more deserving child on the altar of “she’s been through a lot?” Part of me admires his choice, and part of me wonders how he could do it.
As to the subsequent actions of the mother, well, let’s just say I agree with your conclusion on that.
William should have turned the wish down and paid for the trip himself.
I am with TM. I don’t know enough about the particulars of this case to be sure, but I think it is reasonable. It may be that the mother applied without the father’s knowledge. His daughter doesn’t seem to fit the mold of the child you think of the Make a Wish Foundation serving, even if they say it is OK. I doubt very much that the Make a Wish Foundation fulfills every requests, so accepting the request for his daughter does mean turning someone else down. This does have the effect of harming his daughter, who (right or wrong) was promised a trip to DisneyWorld by her mother. He really needs to try to mitigate the damage there by taking his daughter himself to DisneyWorld (or something similar if that is too much distance, money, etc).
I wouldn’t make too much of custody agreements unless you really know what is going on. They sometimes are vicious, full of lies on one or both sides, and not fairly decided.
This does have the effect of harming his daughter, who (right or wrong) was promised a trip to DisneyWorld by her mother. He really needs to try to mitigate the damage there by taking his daughter himself to DisneyWorld (or something similar if that is too much distance, money, etc).
I don’t understand how the child is harmed. Can you explain that? This looks to me like one of the many times in the child’s life, someone is going to promise her something that doesn’t actually go through. The mother is the one that bears responsibility for her promises, not the father.
This smacks of the Ina Garten situation you wrote about last year https://ethicsalarms.com/2011/03/27/the-barefoot-contessa-and-the-compassion-bullies-an-ethics-drama/. I will throw out once again that I don’t believe the wish is coming from the child. How does a four-year old who has been VERY sick know about Disney World? I told my healthy four-year old nephew he was going to Disney World last year and he was not that excited–he didn’t understand what was going on, unlike my 7-year old niece who went crazy. Granted he had a GREAT time, but not until he got there, and not until his big sister told him how cool it was.
I am absolutely sure that Mom taking McKenna to Disney World would be a wonderful experience for both of them, but to use McKenna’s (former)sickness to get a free trip–and denying one other child who IS terminially ill to get a wish granted– kinda makes my stomach turn.
I bet McKenna would be happy to go anywhere with happy parents and rides and if you told her it was Disney World, she’d probably believe you.
I told my healthy four-year old nephew he was going to Disney World last year and he was not that excited–he didn’t understand what was going on
That had occurred to me, as well. I’m not expert on child psychology, or anything, but I think McKenna May happens to be at that age where the retraction of a promise like this wouldn’t be a serious blow. It may not be that the child doesn’t know what Disney World is; I think that below a certain stage of development, promises just don’t have much value because they aren’t quite connected to the actual receipt of the gift.
On the other hand, I object to the argument that appears several times in this thread now, about “denying one other child who IS terminially ill to get a wish granted”.
While I certainly agree that Make-A-Wish can’t possibly grant an unlimited number of wishes, is there any reason to believe that in this particular case McKenna’s individual wish is superseding another, sicker child’s wish? If that’s going to enter into the ethical analysis, someone is going to have to demonstrate to me that the Make-A-Wish Foundation currently has less money in its treasury than it needs to pay out for all of the wishes that are currently on order.
Great comment on all points, Ed…the first is especially perceptive.
I’ll grant you that, Ed on your second point. The heat of the moment got to me and I wasn’t being too rational in that regard. Be that as it may, leaving out the idea that this is denying another child a wish does not make it any less stomach-turning for me. That woman made a private family matter a publicity stunt and it’s horrible.
I know I am a few days behind but I wanted to address a couple of things. Since this is an ethics site, I wanted to make it understood that the father has the ethics of my cat.
1. Make-A-Wish does not deny one child because another got a trip. This girl going on the trip would have had no effect on any other child.
2. The nomination for Make-A-Wish comes from the doctor, not the parents.
3. She will not be “truly” in remission till 5 years from now and she could not have taken the trip during treatment due to immunity levels.
4. Father has been in her life 6 mo. and just got visitation. He has come to the hospital to see her twice. Was invited to her birthday and did not show
5. Before that “ethical” denial he inquired whether his family, himself, wife and children, who have not had anything to do with this little girl, could go. He was told no so he refused to sign off on it. They agreed to let him go, he said no again and made his “ethical” announcement.
6. The mom who is supposedly taking advantage of this situation is not even telling her child that the father is the reason Make-A-Wish isn’t letting her go. She doesn’t want the child to judge him on the basis on that.
This was not the actions of an ethical man. These are the actions of loser who tried to piggy back a trip for his family off the back of a little girl and reacted with anger when it didn’t work.
1. BS. Make-A-Wish does not have unlimited funds.
2. Good to know
3. This doesn’t change the ethics calculus at all. It’s pure rationalization.
4. Sounds like there’s a larger story here.
5. Order of actions does not imply causation. Also, the second denial, even after the rest of his family was invited, puts the father in better light, not worse.
6. Good for the mother. I guess she’s not completely ethically blind.
This was not the actions of an ethical man. These are the actions of loser who tried to piggy back a trip for his family off the back of a little girl and reacted with anger when it didn’t work.
By your details, he was given the trip, and still held his ground. Your evidence does not yield to your conclusion.
Yes, thanks, tgt. Someone has to explain to me how any organization that spends money on grants can say that giving a grant to A doesn’t necessarily preclude giving that money or its equivalent to B. The only organization I know of that operates like that is the US Government.
Correction. I messed up the last sentence by combining 2 ideas. It works as either “your evidence does not yield your conclusion” or “your evidence is yielding to your conclusion,” but not as written.
1. From Make-A-Wish’s own site. “Did you know?
We have never turned down a wish request because of lack of funds, and take pride in fulfilling a wish for every eligible child.” Eligibility, not funding determine approval. While they may not have limited resources, the diversity of wishes and deals made with places like Disney mean that no, her trip would not have effected another child’s.
2. Please see #3, it is directly related to #2.
3. The father made the rationalization that she isn’t “sick enough”. The doctor says that she qualifies. Is it rationalization to take the opinion of the trained medical personnel over the estranged father?
4. Yes the larger story is that he left the mother when she was 1 mo pregnant, went off, had another family and is trying to bulldoze his way into the life of this child.
5. Actually his actions do directly relate, and I did not say he did not relent when the rest of his family was invited. I said he did not when HE was invited. The rest of his family was never invited. As they had never met the child and since I have no facts to the contrary about the medical health of his other children, the argument that it would not be right to send this child because she did not have just 6mo to live and therefore would be taking away from sicker children, seem a little incongruous coming from a man who was demanding that four healthy people who had little, (the father), to nothing (wife and two other kids), to be paid for by the same charity.
Perhaps his ethical epipahny was just timed badly?
limited resources – should have been unlimited resources.
1. Read between the marketspeak. They may have never flatly turned down a wish, but they very well could give different support to a wish than they otherwise would have…which is really the same thing.
3. This shouldn’t necessitate a deep medical background. “Doc, is she terminal?” is the only question that matters.
4. 1 month. Sounds like he broke up with his girlfriend, and then it turned out she was pregnant. The judgment words don’t seem to be warranted.
5. Ah. You switched objects in your statements to give off the impression that he was given what he wanted, and petulantly refused.
Basically, from what you have typed, you have shown a pretty significant bias against this man. The fact pattern you’re trying to represent is:
* Knew about pregnancy
* Left anyway
* Actively refused to have any contact with daughter
* Started separate family, intentionally spurning first child
* Found out girl had a chance at disney land
* Reconnected solely to get a trip to disney land for his other kids and wife
* When he was denied, refused to let the girl go to disney land out of spite
* When the other family tried to meet him half way, continued with the spite
This looks like a caricature that we wouldn’t even believe in a Michael Bay movie. As such, I’m unwilling to trust any of your statements on the relationship and specific dealings between the father, mother, and child.
3. Life-threatening is not the same as terminally ill. The mission statement states the former:
“Who is eligible?
A child with a life-threatening medical condition who has reached the age of 2½ and is under the age of 18 at the time of referral, is potentially eligible for a wish.”
Therefore, “Doc, is she terminal?” isn’t the right question. This also means the charities response seems fair, she had a life-threatening disease and qualified under our rules so we’d like to send her to disney land. Fair enough.
I think this also means that the response from the father is irrelvant as to whether she was cured or not as the question isn’t about whether the child is terminal or not it is whether she suffered a life threatening medical condition within the terms set out above.
You would assume that the charity is able to fund the requests made based on thier own eligibility criteria, so, on this basis the father is being unethical. Seems quite clear.
So, Mark, is any child who has ever suffered from a life-threatening condition eligible, regardless of the child’s current state if health? So it would seem.
Any child who fit the eligibility criteria at the time of referral – Yes
If the Foundation only meant to help those with incurable conditions they would use the term ‘terminal medical conditions’ in their eligiblity criteria.
Ok, it should be “Doc, Is she at a significant risk of dying?” I think my overall point still holds.
Not really.
It is entirely irrelevant whether or not she is at risk of dying. The eligibilty criteria points to the question:
Charity – “Doc, has she had a life threatening disease?”
Doc – “Yes”
Chairty – “Is she older than 2 1/2?”
Doc – “Yes”
Charity – “Was she under 18 at time of referral?”
Doc – “Yes”
Charity – “Right, she is potentially eligble. Has this family had a hard time? Hmmm, child has had leaukaemia, pretty harsh condition, I reckon Disneyland will give her a free trip if we explain the situation.”
I think the charities purpose is to provide a fun time for a family that has been through a stressful situation. Is it a big ask to give a family who’s child has suffered leukeamia a trip to Disneyland? Regardless of the fact she has pulled through it is still a rather upsetting time to be told your kid might die and lets not forget that this child isn’t in the pink of health, you don’t suffer leukeamia and have no repercussions, I’d assume her life expectency has been significantly reduced and that for the rest of her life she will have to live with the worry of remission and this effects the family as well. So, a free trip to disneyland, seems fair enough to me.
In answer to Jack – I would agree with “So, it would seem”. Do you not think that is fair? I can’t tell if your being sarcastic or not I’m afraid. Can’t be an easy time as a family being told your child has a life threatening disease and as pointed out above I think whatever the issue it is likely to have long term consequences.
I also can’t imagine that this is a significant cost and that this is stopping another child from having their wish arranged. The charity will go to Disneyland and get it for free as with the other wishes granted so it will simply be the cost of overheads to the charity, being what, an office, and staff making phone calls negotiating the wishes. If they explicitly say, which they do according to the comment above, that no one child will stop another from having their wish come true then who are we, or the Dad, to say otherwise.
Just to anticpate the counter argument of “but you cant have unlimited resources”. I suppose yes, there may come a point where the foundation has so many applications that the staff aren’t able to make enough calls to set up the wishes but this wasn’t the case in this ethical diliema, the charity still states that it would not stop another child from having their wish come true so what’s his problem?
The Dad is being an ass.
You’ve just suggested the trip is for the family, not the girl and that anyone whose life spanned is shortened should get a wish. You’re rationalizing.
As for the cost, you missed the obvious counterargument. You’ve pushed the cost from the foundation to Disneyland. How many times can the foundation go to the well? Disneyland isn’t going to give a trip to every family who has been through alot.
You’re swallowing marketing bull as if it’s the gospel truth. Right now, I’m explicitly saying that I will give a pony to everyone who asks…and the pony is going to be on the moon. Clearly, nobody should think to hard about whether or not that’s possible. I said it, so who are you to challenge me?
“You’ve just suggested the trip is for the family, not the girl” – Family or girl what difference does it make?
“and that anyone whose life spanned is shortened should get a wish.” – Where do I do that? Seems quite clear it’s those that meet the eligibilty criteria.
“You’ve pushed the cost from the foundation to Disneyland. How many times can the foundation go to the well? – All the wishes aren’t to go to Disneyland. Different children have different wishes. See this page – http://www.wish.org/stories/recent One example is a wish to meet Selena Gomez, the charity will ring her up, explain and organise the wish. Do you think Selena is going to charge her usual rate? Come on. The foundation will always go to the well.
“Disneyland isn’t going to give a trip to every family who has been through alot.” – Again, where do I say that in the comment? Please don’t put words in my mouth. Wishes wil be granted to those that meet the eligibilty criteria.
Final paragraph – The discussion is in relation to whether the father is right not to allow his daughter to go to Disneyland. The charity has said that her going will not stop another childs wish being granted at the time of press. What do you know that I don’t that suggests otherwise?
“You’ve just suggested the trip is for the family, not the girl” – Family or girl what difference does it make?
The charity holds itself out as bringing joy to extremely sick children. You might as well say “Sick or well, what difference does it make?” You’re either created something new that the charity doesn’t do, or you’re saying that the charity has been unethical with all its donors.
“and that anyone whose life spanned is shortened should get a wish.” – Where do I do that? Seems quite clear it’s those that meet the eligibilty criteria.
It’s pretty clear in your writing: “Regardless of the fact she has pulled through it is still a rather upsetting time to be told your kid might die and lets not forget that this child isn’t in the pink of health, you don’t suffer leukeamia and have no repercussions, I’d assume her life expectency has been significantly reduced and that for the rest of her life she will have to live with the worry of remission and this effects the family as well. So, a free trip to disneyland, seems fair enough to me.”
You were using the shortened lifespan to get the girl to meet the eligibility criteria.
“You’ve pushed the cost from the foundation to Disneyland. How many times can the foundation go to the well?” – All the wishes aren’t to go to Disneyland. Different children have different wishes. See this page – http://www.wish.org/stories/recent One example is a wish to meet Selena Gomez, the charity will ring her up, explain and organise the wish. Do you think Selena is going to charge her usual rate? Come on. The foundation will always go to the well.
My point still holds, no matter how many different types of wishes there are. You’re pushing the cost on to the next level. The foundation has a limited goodwill currency. If, 200,000 kids a day met the baseline criteria and all had wishes, the foundation wouldn’t be able to meet that demand.
“Disneyland isn’t going to give a trip to every family who has been through alot.” – Again, where do I say that in the comment? Please don’t put words in my mouth. Wishes wil be granted to those that meet the eligibilty criteria.
You suggested that a family going through alot is enough reason to get a wish. You also suggested that anyone who gets a wish can have it fulfilled. This isn’t rocket science.
Final paragraph – The discussion is in relation to whether the father is right not to allow his daughter to go to Disneyland. The charity has said that her going will not stop another childs wish being granted at the time of press. What do you know that I don’t that suggests otherwise?
Basic logic, economics, and game theory.
Your lack of belief does not translate into fact. But, just for your edification I am busy pulling together the articles I used to pull this information from.
It’s not just lack of belief. It’s basic economics and game theory. I will definitely appreciate the articles, but unless they invalidate some pretty well supported disciplines, I’m not sure what they can do.
Why is there a debate about whether or not she is deserving of the trip. If the foundation itself says that she qualifies and that it is not harming the wishes of another child, and you disagree is it because the CEO of Make-A-Wish is lying or are you stating that the rules set by the charity’s board are incorrect?
Yes, the Make-A-Wish foundation is lying. I wouldn’t say the rules set by the charity’s board are incorrect, but if this child qualifies, the rules do not match the foundation’s outward persona.
I would if any of this would change if this was just a deferred trip from BEFORE she went into remission?
Because this is beginning to sound like a lose/lose situation. She has to be sick enough to deserve the trip but well enough to actually take it.
Is that correct?
That was suppose to be “I wonder…”, not I would.
Failing at doing two things at once.
Some wishes are impossible. That’s life.
The trip was put off twice while she was receiving treatment. They were advised to wait.
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/20/3714558/donations-will-send-ohio-cancer.html
“You’ve just suggested the trip is for the family, not the girl” – Family or girl what difference does it make? – To the ethical dilema in question. None.
“You were using the shortened lifespan to get the girl to meet the eligibility criteria.” – No, she already meets it. Your original argument was that because she is no longer terminally ill the dad is right not to let her go. I was stating that just because she is not terminal and is so called “cured” there are still repercussions from sufferng the condition which justifies providing charity. Hence, why the charity use the term “life-threatening” instead of “terminal” in their eligibility criteria.
This really is simple; Was the child eligible – Yes, Was her going stopping another from being given charity at the time of question – No.
Taking your logic, none of the children should take up a wish for fear that another “more worthy” should be granted it.
“You’ve just suggested the trip is for the family, not the girl” – Family or girl what difference does it make? – To the ethical dilema in question. None.
Then you’re clearly not seeing the ethical dilemma that I am. It is unethical to knowingly accept support from a charity that is outside of what it represents to its donors.
“You were using the shortened lifespan to get the girl to meet the eligibility criteria.” – No, she already meets it. Your original argument was that because she is no longer terminally ill the dad is right not to let her go. I was stating that just because she is not terminal and is so called “cured” there are still repercussions from sufferng the condition which justifies providing charity. Hence, why the charity use the term “life-threatening” instead of “terminal” in their eligibility criteria.
Being a survivor of a life threatening illness is not the same as actually having your life in danger. The latter is what the charity markets on. You absolutely are using the continued after affects of surviving the life threatening illness to justify the child’s eligibility.
This really is simple; Was the child eligible – Yes, Was her going stopping another from being given charity at the time of question – No.
There is so much wrong with this. For starters, your second question only comes into play if the answer to your first question is “no”. Second, just because something won’t immediately harm another child does not make it ethical. Their can be harm to other wishers downt he line and their can be harm to the donors. Third, both the answers to your questions are wrong. The first is, apparently, debatable, and the second is obviously false. If the foundation is working on this task now, they have less times to work on other tasks. The only way it could be ture is if the foundation has zero other wishes in their queue, and that seems highly unlikely.
Taking your logic, none of the children should take up a wish for fear that another “more worthy” should be granted it.
I don’t see how you get to that conclusion from my logic. If you meet the eligibility criteria of the organization and the outward face they bring in donors with, then their would be no need to turn down a wish.
What you are arguing is purely based on interpretation. How Make-A-Wish represents itself? I thought it was a charity for children with serious illnesses.
She was eligible to go on the trip during treatment. They had no choice but to postpone. She was never endangering the trip for another child. Just taking the one she was going to be making in the first place.
At this point it sounds an awful lot like you are saying that they are not living up to your expectations so they are wrong.
I have not commented on the information that this is a delayed trip that was planned when she was eligible to receive help from the foundation. If that’s actually the case, the calculation changes. If she was scheduled for X, then got worse so she couldn’t do X, following up with X later seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Now, if X wasn’t decided on/agreed to until X was unmanageable, and X would only be manageable if she got past her illness, then I’d call everyone involved stupid.
According to the article I posted as well as others I have read, they had planned the trip twice but she was too ill to go. The doctors advised that they wait till after her last treatment. Her last treatment was one month previous to all this mess starting. She will not be considered “cured” for approx five years.
Well then. I guess I’m arguing the ethics of a counterfactual situation. I stand by my statements, they just only apply in supposition land.
So, the dad’s an ethics dunce and the mother and foundation are sane?
This is the ethical question:
Assuming May is not doing so out of spite, is his decision to pass up his daughter’s dream trip to the Mouse Kingdom so that a more needy child can be helped an altruistic and noble gesture, or an unethical act of disloyalty and betrayal to his young daughter?
So, whether the family go or not, no difference to the ethical dilemma in question.
“You absolutely are using the continued after affects of surviving the life threatening illness to justify the child’s eligibility.”
She had already met the eligibility criteria which are:
Who is eligible?
A child with a life-threatening medical condition who has reached the age of 2½ and is under the age of 18 at the time of referral, is potentially eligible for a wish.
http://www.wish.org/refer/who_is_eligible
Hence, why they offered her a wish.
“Second, just because something won’t immediately harm another child does not make it ethical. Their can be harm to other wishers downt he line and their can be harm to the donors.”
The work had already been done. The wish set up and ready to go, the resources already spent. How is it harming others down the line? Surely it is a waste of the resources already spent in setting up the wish. The donors aren’t hamred as she clearly met the eligibility criteria which are available for all to see on the website before they contribute.
“The first is, apparently, debatable” – No, she met the eligibility criteria as set out above.
“If the foundation is working on this task now, they have less times to work on other tasks.” – Again, the task was complete, so not going was a waste of their time setting it up.
“The only way it could be ture is if the foundation has zero other wishes in their queue, and that seems highly unlikely.” – Irrelevant, given the task was already completed and all that was needed was the signature of the Dad, the foundation had spent its resources. But, you also need to demonstrate that the foundation can’t grant the wishes to others in the queue.
Why do you assume that they can’t?
No, they don’t have unlimited resources, but that is why within the criteria above it ends with potentially eligible – So, if a child comes along and wishes for $10 million it can’t be done.
What you need to show is that, at present, another wish that would have been granted to a more deserving child is now not being granted as a result of this child going to Disneyland?
The only people who can answer that are the charity and they say No.
“I don’t see how you get to that conclusion from my logic. If you meet the eligibility criteria of the organization and the outward face they bring in donors with, then their would be no need to turn down a wish.”
Your argument was that because she isn’t “terminal” anymore (I refer back to the “Doc, is she terminal?” comment you made previously) the father is right not to let her go on the trip as the resources of the foundation should be spent on a child who is “terminal”.
Basically the father is trying to re-write the foundations eligibility criteria. The child still has a “life-threatening medical condition” outlined in the eligibility criteria above.
So, following your logic all children who fit the eligibility criteria and are granted a wish should ask themselves the question “Actually, are there any others who are sicker than me?”
At what point does this stop?
If a child is terminally ill and has six months to live you would assume that in the world somewhere there must be a child with only 3 months to live. Should the 6 month ethically pass up the wish? If you’re the child with 3 months surely there is one with 1….. etc etc
She met the eligibility criteria I set out above.
She still suffers a life threatening medical condition.
And finally, at the time of writing, the charity say that no others who met their criteria, who would have been granted their wish and whom where in a more needy state, will be denied it as a result of this girl going.
The conversation back and forth with Mark does not include the information that the trip was planned while the child was actually sick, and only delayed because the child got worse. I’ve ceded the reality of this situation due to additional information. My responses here are mainly to note that Mark’s arguments continue to be invalid rationalizations.
Assuming May is not doing so out of spite, is his decision to pass up his daughter’s dream trip to the Mouse Kingdom so that a more needy child can be helped an altruistic and noble gesture, or an unethical act of disloyalty and betrayal to his young daughter?
*sigh*. If you’re going to misrepresent the situation we’ve been arguing over, what’s the point in discussing this?
“You absolutely are using the continued after affects of surviving the life threatening illness to justify the child’s eligibility.”
She had already met the eligibility criteria which are:
Who is eligible?
A child with a life-threatening medical condition who has reached the age of 2½ and is under the age of 18 at the time of referral, is potentially eligible for a wish.
http://www.wish.org/refer/who_is_eligible
Hence, why they offered her a wish.
First, your argument here has already been debunked. Second, your argument here doesn’t deny what you were previously doing.
“Second, just because something won’t immediately harm another child does not make it ethical. Their can be harm to other wishers downt he line and their can be harm to the donors.”
The work had already been done. The wish set up and ready to go, the resources already spent. How is it harming others down the line? Surely it is a waste of the resources already spent in setting up the wish. The donors aren’t hamred as she clearly met the eligibility criteria which are available for all to see on the website before they contribute.
1, The resources have not all been spent. Until the family actually goes to Disney, Disney (and the foundation) still have outward expenses.
2. Just because the resources have been used does not mean it’s ethical to accept them. If the government sinks a ton of money in planning a bash in Vegas for the department of agriculture, it’s till appropriate for the invited members to turn down the invitation.
3. We’ve been over the criteria before. If Make-a-Wish really grants the wishes of people who have survived life-threatenind medical conditions (like the case we’re talking about), then they are being duplicitous towards their donors. Fine print does not make it so other marketing and statements don’t exist. This isn’t necessarily true legally, but it is true ethically.
“The first is, apparently, debatable” – No, she met the eligibility criteria as set out above.
See above.
“If the foundation is working on this task now, they have less times to work on other tasks.” – Again, the task was complete, so not going was a waste of their time setting it up.
See above.
“The only way it could be ture is if the foundation has zero other wishes in their queue, and that seems highly unlikely.” – Irrelevant, given the task was already completed and all that was needed was the signature of the Dad, the foundation had spent its resources. But, you also need to demonstrate that the foundation can’t grant the wishes to others in the queue.
Why do you assume that they can’t?
No, they don’t have unlimited resources, but that is why within the criteria above it ends with potentially eligible – So, if a child comes along and wishes for $10 million it can’t be done.
What you need to show is that, at present, another wish that would have been granted to a more deserving child is now not being granted as a result of this child going to Disneyland?
The only people who can answer that are the charity and they say No.
I don’t need to show anything. If you have some magical way to avoid basic economic theory or show flaws in game theory, have at it. I suspect a Nobel Prize is in your future.
“I don’t see how you get to that conclusion from my logic. If you meet the eligibility criteria of the organization and the outward face they bring in donors with, then their would be no need to turn down a wish.”
Your argument was that because she isn’t “terminal” anymore (I refer back to the “Doc, is she terminal?” comment you made previously) the father is right not to let her go on the trip as the resources of the foundation should be spent on a child who is “terminal”.
Basically the father is trying to re-write the foundations eligibility criteria. The child still has a “life-threatening medical condition” outlined in the eligibility criteria above.
So, following your logic all children who fit the eligibility criteria and are granted a wish should ask themselves the question “Actually, are there any others who are sicker than me?”
At what point does this stop?
If a child is terminally ill and has six months to live you would assume that in the world somewhere there must be a child with only 3 months to live. Should the 6 month ethically pass up the wish? If you’re the child with 3 months surely there is one with 1….. etc etc
I ceded the “Is she terminal” point. Why don’t you engage with the argument still on the table? Past that point, you just repeated your claims about my argument that I already debunked. My argument is that the child did not meet the eligibility criteria that the foundation represents to the public at large to solicit donations. I’ve been clear on that. If you actually showed I was wrong, then it would make my argument inapplicable – not change my argument to something else.
She met the eligibility criteria I set out above.
She still suffers a life threatening medical condition.
And finally, at the time of writing, the charity say that no others who met their criteria, who would have been granted their wish and whom where in a more needy state, will be denied it as a result of this girl going.
Point 1 is still irrelevant.
If point 2 is different from point 1, you’re again arguing secondary reasons that are outside eligibility criteria.
Point 3 doesn’t say anything about what is. As such, even if I grant all 3 of your points as true, you haven’t logically reached your conclusion.
Article talking about how he wanted the “whole” family to go…
http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/07/20/Help-goes-national-as-cancer-survivor-4-will-get-her-wish.html
History of visitation and him talking about how it “ticked” him off….
http://www.sent-trib.com/front-page/disney-dream-dashed
Michael Bay would be proud. 🙂
I also read a big chunk of forum comments made by someone who was suppose to have been the mother detailing how she actually broke up with him when she found out she was pregnant because that is also when she found out he was married. But since there is no way to verify identity on a forum like that, I am taking it with a grain of salt.
It’s looking more and more like the Dad’s an ass.