Within William MacAskill book “Doing Good Better”, he argues that we ought to donate to charities that are the most effective in the pursuit to relieve people of suffering. He also asserts that it is not morally justifiable to give to a cause that is close to one’s heart. He proposes this, because the charity we choose to fund may not be as effective and efficient as a different one we could support with the same resources. In choosing not to support the more effective charity would be unfair, because we are favoring the group minority out of subjective reasons. This is demonstrated through the QALY measurement of effective and efficient charities. Arguably, the individual who chooses to donate their resources to a certain charity does so due
…show more content…
QALY is a measurement system that evaluates the good caused by medical intervention (or any form of intervention that will have a positive effect on the lives of people). If we can give someone a year of perfect health in a developing country, then that would be worth 1 QALY (51). The significant characteristic of QALY is that it is impartial towards the charitable cause, because it focuses on how effective and efficient our money can be used to help people. He demonstrates the utility of the QALY measurement through how we can effectively/efficiently, or non-effectively/efficiently donate 1000$. An example of effectively doing good would be donating money to a charity that would distribute insecticide sprayed bed-nets to high risk malaria locations. Ideally, these types of charities are efficient since it can help many people, and effective since it prevents avoidable deaths. In effect, donating $1000 to this type of charity would potentially generate 10 QALYs. However, non-effective charities that don't generate nearly as much QALYs would be a charity focused on relieving someone of a harmful disease such as Kaposi-Sarcoma. However, this donation of 1000$ would only benefit a few individuals and not restore them back to their full health since it would require more money; the aid generated would be .02 (52). This would not be as nearly as effective as sending bed-nets. Ideally, we ought to aim at generating the most QALY’s possible per-dollar. Given we want to donate money for the sake of helping those in need, the cause of suffering ought to be irrelevant to our decision. In effect, MacAskill asserts that our decisions about donating ought to be decided through the means of the QALY measurement to relieve suffering, because it is effective, efficient, and impartial. However, it is ultimately left to the agent to donate those funds accordingly. Therefore,
QALY is a measurement system that evaluates the good caused by medical intervention (or any form of intervention that will have a positive effect on the lives of people). If we can give someone a year of perfect health in a developing country, then that would be worth 1 QALY (51). The significant characteristic of QALY is that it is impartial towards the charitable cause, because it focuses on how effective and efficient our money can be used to help people. He demonstrates the utility of the QALY measurement through how we can effectively/efficiently, or non-effectively/efficiently donate 1000$. An example of effectively doing good would be donating money to a charity that would distribute insecticide sprayed bed-nets to high risk malaria locations. Ideally, these types of charities are efficient since it can help many people, and effective since it prevents avoidable deaths. In effect, donating $1000 to this type of charity would potentially generate 10 QALYs. However, non-effective charities that don't generate nearly as much QALYs would be a charity focused on relieving someone of a harmful disease such as Kaposi-Sarcoma. However, this donation of 1000$ would only benefit a few individuals and not restore them back to their full health since it would require more money; the aid generated would be .02 (52). This would not be as nearly as effective as sending bed-nets. Ideally, we ought to aim at generating the most QALY’s possible per-dollar. Given we want to donate money for the sake of helping those in need, the cause of suffering ought to be irrelevant to our decision. In effect, MacAskill asserts that our decisions about donating ought to be decided through the means of the QALY measurement to relieve suffering, because it is effective, efficient, and impartial. However, it is ultimately left to the agent to donate those funds accordingly. Therefore,