The Importance of Philanthropy Foundation for the Future Sustainability of Agriculture and Nutrition: An Opinion Study on Practical Applications, Policies, and Strategies.

Food security, food sustainability, and malnutrition represent critical global challenges. Th urgency of comprehensive action is evident in the need for research collaboration between the food industry, agriculture, public health, and nutrition. This article highlights the role of philanthropy, of a non-profit organization, in supporting research and development and filling financial gaps. The article also explores the interplay of nutrition, agriculture, and government and policy, positioning philanthropy as a catalyst for transformative change and advocating for collaborative efforts to comprehensively address global food challenges. In addition, the discussion also underscores the ethical complexities surrounding charitable food aid, especially in terms of the dignity and autonomy of its recipients. The paper concludes by proposing future directions and implications, advocating for diversified intervention portfolios and collaborative efforts involving governments, businesses, and local communities. Apart from that, the importance of answering and alleviating ethical dilemmas related to food charity assistance needs to be a concern for future studies related to philanthropy because of the significant challenges faced by the contemporary food system, which include food security, health, and nutritional sustainability.

Public Attitudes Regarding Hospitals and Physicians Encouraging Donations From Grateful Patients.

Importance: Philanthropy is an increasingly important source of support for health care institutions. There is little empirical evidence to inform ethical guidelines. Objective: To assess public attitudes regarding specific practices used by health care institutions to encourage philanthropic donations from grateful patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based sample representative of the US population, a survey solicited opinions from a primary cohort representing the general population and 3 supplemental cohorts (with high income, cancer, and with heart disease, respectively). Exposures: Web-based questionnaire. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive analyses (with percentages weighted to make the sample demographically representative of the US population) evaluated respondents' attitudes regarding the acceptability of strategies hospitals may use to identify, solicit, and thank donors; perceptions of the effect of physicians discussing donations with their patients; and opinions regarding gift use and stewardship. Results: Of 831 individuals targeted for the general population sample, 513 (62%) completed surveys, of whom 246 (48.0%) were women and 345 (67.3%) non-Hispanic white. In the weighted sample, 47.0% (95% CI, 42.3%-51.7%) responded that physicians giving patient names to hospital fundraising staff after asking patients' permission was definitely or probably acceptable; 8.5% (95% CI, 5.7%-11.2%) endorsed referring without asking permission. Of the participants, 79.5% (95% CI, 75.6%-83.4%) reported it acceptable for physicians to talk to patients about donating if patients have brought it up; 14.2% (95% CI, 10.9%-17.6%) reported it acceptable when patients have not brought it up; 9.9% (95% CI, 7.1%-12.8%) accepted hospital development staff performing wealth screening using publicly available data to identify patients capable of large donations. Of the participants, 83.2% (95% CI, 79.5%-86.9%) agreed that physicians talking with their patients about donating may interfere with the patient-physician relationship. For a hypothetical patient who donated $1 million, 50.1% (95% CI, 45.4%-54.7%) indicated it would be acceptable for the hospital to show thanks by providing nicer hospital rooms, 26.0% (95% CI, 21.9%-30.1%) by providing expedited appointments, and 19.8% (95% CI, 16.1%-23.5%) by providing physicians' cell phone numbers. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of participants drawn from the general US population, a substantial proportion did not endorse legally allowable approaches for identifying, engaging, and thanking patient-donors.

Ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) in rare diseases: a landscape analysis from funders.

Recent interest in personalized medicine has highlighted the importance of research in ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI). Issues in ELSI research may be magnified in the rare diseases population (i.e., small numbers of affected individuals, challenges in maintaining confidentiality, and paucity of treatments for diseases where natural history information may be limited). More than other areas of research, potential barriers include the lack of funding opportunities and appropriate review processes for applications to funding agencies. The ELSI Working Group of the International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) performed an informal survey on ELSI funding initiatives to learn more about different funding mechanisms and to identify potential gaps in funding opportunities. The Working Group discusses these challenges and highlights the role of funding agencies and partners such as patient advocacy groups, specialists in social sciences and humanities, and clinicians to advance ELSI research in rare diseases.

Medical Crowdfunding for Unproven Medical Treatments: Should Gofundme Become a Gatekeeper?

Medical crowdfunding has raised many ethical concerns, among them that it may undermine privacy, widen health inequities, and commodify health care. One motivation for medical crowdfunding has received particular attention among ethicists. Recent studies have shown that many individuals are using crowdfunding to finance access to scientifically unsupported medical treatments. Recently, GoFundMe prohibited campaigns for antivaccination groups on the grounds that they "promote misinformation about vaccines" and for treatment at a German clinic offering unproven cancer treatments due to "the need to make sure people are equipped to make well-informed decisions." GoFundMe has not taken any additional actions to regulate the much larger presence of campaigns seeking to fund unproven medical interventions on the platform. In this article, we make the ethical case for intervention by GoFundMe and other crowdfunding platforms.

"Tremendous financial burden": Crowdfunding for organ transplantation costs in Canada.

Online crowdfunding platforms such as GoFundMe are used to raise funds for health-related expenses associated with medical conditions such as organ transplantation. By investigating crowdfunding in Canadian organ transplantation, this study aimed to increase understanding of the motivations and outcomes of organ transplantation crowdfunding. Canadian liver and kidney transplantation campaigns posted to GoFundMe between May 30 & 31 2018 were identified and after exclusion, 258 kidney and 171 liver campaigns were included in study. These campaigns were coded for: worthiness of the campaign recipient, requested financial and non-monetary contributions, how monetary donations would be spent, and comments on the Canadian health system, among others. Results suggest Canadian organ donors, transplant candidates, recipients, and their families and caregivers experience significant financial difficulties not addressed by the public health system. Living and medication costs, transportation and relocation expenses, and income loss were the expenses most commonly highlighted by campaigners. Liver campaigns raised nearly half their goal while kidney campaigns received 11.5% of their requested amount. Findings highlight disease burden and the use of crowdfunding as a response to the extraordinary costs associated with organ transplantation. Although crowdfunding reduces some financial burden, it does not do so equitably and raises ethical concerns.

Medical crowdfunding in China: empirics and ethics.

Medical crowdfunding has become a popular choice worldwide for people with unaffordable health needs. In low-income and middle-income countries with limited social welfare arrangements and a high incidence of catastrophic health spending, the market for medical crowdfunding is booming. However, relevant research was conducted exclusively in North America and Europe; little is known about medical crowdfunding activities inother contexts. As a first step towards filling this knowledge gap, this study depicts the realities of medical crowdfunding in a middle-income country China through empirical investigation and ethical analysis. We examine 100 randomly selected medical campaigns from a major Chinese crowdfunding platform and analyse the relevance of the previously identified ethical concerns to the Chinese context. The empirical findings show that Chinese campaigns have low and uneven success rates, require legally the participation of charitable organisations and focus on financial distress and family values in appealing for donations. In addition, the ethical analysis suggests that medical crowdfunding in China shares several ethical concerns raised in developed countries such as the veracity of claims and privacy violation. More importantly, our research reveals the inadequacy of current evidence and the lack of indicators to evaluate ethical issues in practice. Additional research is needed to better understand this fundraising practice across different social and cultural contexts.

Ethical Issues and Recommendations in Grateful Patient Fundraising and Philanthropy.

Grateful patients provide substantial philanthropic funding for health care institutions, resulting in important societal benefits. Although grateful patient fundraising (GPFR) is widespread, it raises an array of ethical issues for patients, physicians, development professionals, and institutions. These issues have not been described comprehensively, and there is insufficient guidance to inform the ethical practice of GPFR. Consequently, the authors convened a "Summit on the Ethics of Grateful Patient Fundraising," with the goal of identifying primary ethical issues in GPFR and offering recommendations regarding how to manage them. Participants were 29 experts from across the United States who represented the perspectives of bioethics, clinical practice, development, law, patients, philanthropy, psychology, and regulatory compliance. Intensive discussions resulted in articulating ethical issues for physicians and other clinicians (discussions with patients about philanthropy; physician-initiated discussions; clinically vulnerable patients; conflicts of obligation and equity regarding physician's time, attention, and responsiveness and the provision of special services; and transparency and respecting donor intent) as well as for development officers and institutions (transparency in the development professional-donor relationship; impact on clinical care; confidentiality and privacy; conflicts of interest; institution-patient/donor relationship; concierge services for grateful patients; scientific merit and research integrity; transparency in use of philanthropic gifts; and institutional policies and training in responsible GPFR). While these recommendations promise to mitigate some of the ethical issues associated with GPFR, important next steps include conducting research on the ethical issues in GPFR, disseminating these recommendations, developing standardized training for clinicians regarding them, and revising them as warranted.

Ethical issues in health philanthropy.

Health leaders in Canada face a myriad of challenges with healthcare philanthropy-not just the practical question of how to be successful but also ethical questions. Is fundraising in partnership with companies that are implicated in the so-called lifestyle diseases appropriate? When does appropriate recognition for donors or volunteers cross the line into facilitating preferential access to care? Ethical decision-making in health philanthropy considers appropriate recognition or partnership in donor relations in the context of the public good with which healthcare institutions are entrusted and the fiduciary responsibilities of hospitals and clinicians to patients.

Crowdfunding FOR MEDICAL CARE: Ethical Issues in an Emerging Health Care Funding Practice.

Crowdfunding websites allow users to post a public appeal for funding for a range of activities, including adoption, travel, research, participation in sports, and many others. One common form of crowdfunding is for expenses related to medical care. Medical crowdfunding appeals serve as a means of addressing gaps in medical and employment insurance, both in countries without universal health insurance, like the United States, and countries with universal coverage limited to essential medical needs, like Canada. For example, as of 2012, the website Gofundme had been used to raise a total of 8.8 million dollars (U.S.) for seventy-six hundred campaigns, the majority of which were health related. This money can make an important difference in the lives of crowdfunding users, as the costs of unexpected or uninsured medical needs can be staggering. In this article, I offer an overview of the benefits of medical crowdfunding websites and the ethical concerns they raise. I argue that medical crowdfunding is a symptom and cause of, rather than a solution to, health system injustices and that policy-makers should work to address the injustices motivating the use of crowdfunding sites for essential medical services. Despite the sites' ethical problems, individual users and donors need not refrain from using them, but they bear a political responsibility to address the inequities encouraged by these sites. I conclude by suggesting some responses to these concerns and future directions for research.

Stepping Into and Out of the Void: Funding Dynamics of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in California, Sweden, and South Korea.

Nonprofit organizations and philanthropists stepped into a funding void caused by controversies over public funding of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. Based on interviews of 83 representatives of 53 funders, we examine the motivations and accountability structures of public agencies, corporations, fundraising dependent nonprofit organizations and philanthropic organizations that funded hESC research in three jurisdictions: California, Sweden, and South Korea. While non-traditional forms of funding are essential in the early stages of research advancement, they are unreliable for the long timeframes necessary to advance cell therapies. Such funding sources may enter the field based on high expectations, but may exit just as rapidly based on disappointing rates of progress.

Ethical, legal and professional issues arising from social media coverage by UK Helicopter Emergency Medical Services.

OBJECTIVE: Social media (SoMe) are gaining increasing acceptance among, and use by, healthcare service deliverers and workers. UK Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) use SoMe to deliver service information and to fundraise, among other purposes. This article examines UK HEMS use of SoMe between January and February 2014 to determine the extent of adoption and to highlight trends in use. METHODS: The database of the Association of Air Ambulances, crosschecked with UK Emergency Aviation, was used to identify flying, charitable UK HEMS. This search identified 28 UK HEMS, of which 24 services met the criteria for selection for review. Using information harvested from the public domain, we then systematically documented SoMe use by the services. RESULTS: SoMe use by UK HEMS is extensive but not uniform. All selected UK HEMS maintained websites with blogs, as well as Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia and JustGiving profiles, with the majority of services using Ebay for Charity, LinkedIn and YouTube. Some HEMS also held a presence on Pinterest, Google+, Instagram and Flickr, with a minority of services maintaining their own Rich Site Summary (RSS) feed. CONCLUSIONS: The SoMe adopted, while varied, allowed for increased, and different forms of, information delivery by HEMS to the public, often in real time. Such use, though, risks breaching patient confidentiality and data protection requirements, especially when information is viewed cumulatively across platforms. There is an urgent need for the continued development of guidance in this unique setting to protect patients while UK HEMS promote and fundraise for their charitable activities.

Oncologists' Experiences and Attitudes About Their Role in Philanthropy and Soliciting Donations From Grateful Patients.

PURPOSE: Physician participation in philanthropy is important to marshal resources that allow hospitals to pursue their missions, but little is known about how physicians participate and their attitudes toward participation. METHODS: To characterize philanthropic roles physicians play and their attitudes about participation and its ethical acceptability, medical oncologists affiliated with the 40 National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers were randomly sampled and surveyed to evaluate experiences and attitudes regarding participation in philanthropy at their institutions. Responses were tabulated; significant associations by physicians' characteristics were explored. RESULTS: A total of 405 (52%) physicians responded; 62% were men, and 72% were white. Most (71%) had been exposed to their institution's fundraising/development staff; 48% of those were taught how to identify patients who would be good donors; 26% received information about ethical guidelines for soliciting donations from their patients; 21% were taught how their institution ensures Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliance. A third (32%) of respondents had been asked to directly solicit a donation from their patients for their institution, of whom half declined to do so. Those who had solicited from their patients had been in practice significantly longer (mean, 19 v 13 years; P < .001). A substantial minority (37%) felt comfortable talking to their patients about donation (men more than women, 43% v 26%; P = .008); however, 74% agreed it could interfere with the physician-patient relationship, and 52% believe conflict of interest exists. CONCLUSION: Institutions are asking physicians to directly solicit their patients for donations with variability in physicians' perceptions of the impact on relationships with patients and responses toward those requests.

Philanthropic dilemmas and the nurse administrator role.

Nurse administrators are in a position to encounter ethical dilemmas when evaluating philanthropic proposals. Nurses may have little formal training in ethics, or they may be most experienced with ethical frameworks that apply primarily to clinical patient encounters. Gifts of goods, services, education, or other benefits to nurses may create ethical dilemmas. Philanthropic ethics and potential dilemmas are discussed in nonnursing professions such as medicine and nonprofit administration but rarely explored in the nursing administration context. Nurse administrators in a position to evaluate generous offers of philanthropy should identify key components to fully assess the ethics of their receipt. A survey of several resources is done to provide nurse administrators with the foundation to develop policies related to philanthropy if they are absent, preferably in advance of the offer. Recommendations for assessment and evaluation of philanthropic proposals are provided to aid nurse administrators in their synthesis and application of ethical principles from multiple sources.