An unusual letter from King's College Hospital

[jollybaby]

As I said before MM I have no issue with hospitals raising funds through charity. It is just the specific targeting of recent patients in this case. Aside from my slightly emotional reservations you have to think is this really the best group of people to approach for financial support? The fact that letter recipients were recent patients suggests that they may not be in the greatest of health. They may be out of work. It's also likely that a fair few will be elderly. Any of these doesn't put you in the best position to be able to donate large sums of cash. I'd be interested to know what the response rate from the letter send out was or whether the charity's fundraising would be better directed elsewhere.

[ianr]

>I'd be interested to know what the response rate from the letter send out was

If the letter was from the CEO and the donations are made to the Charity then shouldn't that, in principle, be impossible to find out?

[jollybaby]

Yes i'm sure it would be but that doesn't stop me being interested!

[expat]

Well I guess you could compare what they did say 1 month before the letter and what they got after the letter...

[Earl Aelfheah]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just a point of historical fact. Hospitals in this

> country have, for the vast part of their

> existence, relied upon charity and voluntary

> support. Barts was established in the 13th century

> as a religious charitable institution, many other

> similar hospitals followed in subsequent

> centuries. The biggest nationalisation ever was

> the "creation" of the NHS which took over

> previously charitable and municipal funded

> establishments in 1948.

>

> So for just over 60 years we've had a tax funded

> (NOT government funded) health service against

> several hundred years of charity funding.

The fact that hospitals were run as charities for a large part of their history is not really that relevant. A tax funded, universal health care system has to be preferable to one that relies on philantrophy.

I am surprised that so many are OK with King's approaching recently treated patients for money (assuming that this is what is happening, as portrayed in this thread).

[RosieH]

OH MY GOD THEY HAVEN'T ASKED FOR MONEY.

[Marmora Man]

  Quote

A tax funded, universal health care system has to be preferable to one that relies on philantrophy.

RahRah - why is this so? I gave you some facts - you have made an assertion but given no reasons.

A charity based hospital could be locally funded (charity / local taxes / municipal [aka council] support / local fund raising events / philanthropic gifts etc), locally controlled, supported by the community it serves and reflect the needs and desires of its users.

That's broadly how things used to be - and still are in some countries - Canada for one, where up to 50% of local hospital funding in some states is raised locally thru' dedicated fund raising professionals. If the sums raised are, relatively, limited they may be spent more wisely than block grants from central government.

[sofaRunner]

if you back up a bit there is a comment asking why the staff at kings don't take a cut back if things are that tight - this came to mind on Saturday as I listened to patrick Kielty on radio 2 talking about an Elvis event that the station had run in hyde park the previous weekend. He was trying to say how good a job they had done of organising the day & to do that mentioned his free ticket & how good the food was backstage. Apparently Freddie Flintoff's mother was there with Freddie taking pic's of her with famous people. It is impossible for me to estimate how much of the taxpayers money was wasted feeding the rich & famous deep fried bananas.........

leave NHS bosses wages alone - they are at least trying to improve to make it work...... it's time the BBC made proper cutbacks & reduced the obscene wages of DJ's & presenters.......surely stopping this sort of expenditure & redirecting the lienence payers money to the NHS would solve a this nonsense! Imagine how many more nurses could be employed for the price of Patrick Keilty's salary!!!

[Huguenot]

Godwin's Law takes something of a back seat when sofaRunner can so elegantly turn an argument about hospital charity into a spot of bashing the beeb.

This one is worthy of the Daily Mail: "redirecting the lienence payers money to the NHS would solve a this nonsense"

It's so cretinous it's spectacular. I can't even be bothered to respond intelligently.

Cretinism, incidentally, is treatable on the NHS. Before sofaRunner's appearance on this forum it had largely been eradicated in the developed world.

[Tarot]

So is senility.

[Tarot]

Well old bean are you saying, cretins live in the undeveloped world. What would God say talking about earths citizens like that.No hand shake for you either. Hypocrite comes to mind. Eradicating people.from the forum thats bullying.

[sofaRunner]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cretinism, incidentally, is treatable on the NHS.

> Before sofaRunner's appearance on this forum it

> had largely been eradicated in the developed

> world.

seems a bit harsh *sob*.

admittedly it was a Mail-ism & somewhat tenuous but read through the thread itself & whilst it started off well it really has some truely absurd moments....... mine is only a drop in the crazy ocean

[mycroft]

@jollybaby

"I'd be interested to know what the response rate from the letter send out was..."

Jane Ferguson, the Director of Fundraising mentioned in a post a few pages back that she had received thousands of letters of support following the etter going out...Probabaly safe to assume that most those people wanted to know more, which was the point of the letter in the first place, that is probabaly as near to an answer as you are going to get.

Sounds like a successful approach to me.

[Tarot]

Its always worth a try. Lots of people who have been in hospital.feel they would like to give something back,even a little box of chocolates to say thanks to a nurse or even the smiling ladies on the tea trolleys. Some have even given t.vs for the day rooms, So some people wouldnt mind making donations.

[DJKillaQueen]

illogical concern for the intangible "feelings" of a few

We are talking about vulnerable people, who may well be more vulnerable than usual because they are recovering from recent treatment.

OH MY GOD THEY HAVEN'T ASKED FOR MONEY.

No but the intention is clear. Why else would they send a letter 'informing' RECENT PATIENTS of the fundraising efforts of Kings? It is clearly done in the belief that recent patients might be more likely to donate or fund raise as they have recently received treatment. It's premeditated to have a desired effect.

Not one person on this thread has so far commented on my suggestion of giving patients a box to tick if they don't want to receive associated mail (an opt out option). It is by far to the most sensible solution to safeguard from any complaint.

[Tarot]

I agree No one should feel obliged to donate, and patients should have the choice of mail sent or not .

[Moos]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not one person on this thread has so far commented

> on my suggestion of giving patients a box to tick

> if they don't want to receive associated mail (an

> opt out option). It is by far to the most sensible

> solution to safeguard from any complaint.

DJKQ, the whole letter is intended as an 'opt in' which is a more robust and discreet approach than any opt out, which can be ticked by accident or absent-mindedly, as many marketing companies know very well. The implication of the King's letter is that if you don't respond, or you respond no then they will not contact you again.

[mycroft]

What Moos said seems to make sense, everybody is shouting about providing an opt in or opt out when this would appear to be exactly what this letter was.

[Moos]

To be fair, annaj made exactly the same point a page ago! :)

[Earl Aelfheah]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A tax funded, universal health care system has to

> be preferable to one that relies on philantrophy.

>

>

> RahRah - why is this so? I gave you some facts -

> you have made an assertion but given no reasons.

I gave my opinion, which is kind of the point of a forum. A hospital that is run on charitable donations is one that will find it very hard to plan, will be even more constrained by the whims of fashionable causes and will have to direct huge amounts of resource courting wealthy, potential donors. I find it very hard to believe that you would truelly like to see hospitals dependent on donations.

The fact that hospitals were run on this basis for a long time, may be a fact, but isn't that relevant. It doesn't prove that the model is superior (in fact it suggests progress).

[mycroft]

Again, it was made quite clear about 7 pages back by King's Director of Fundraising that the Trust and Charity are two financially separate organisations, there has been nosuggestiom that I can see that the hospital is going to be run on charitable donations...you may be going a little over the top with your dystopian vision there.

[Earl Aelfheah]

No one is suggesting that King's is going to be run on charitable donations. Marmora Man has pointed out that such a model of health care did exist in the past and (at least as I read his comments), seems to suggest that it is a feasible model for health care for the present. I disagree.

[Keef]

I think MM was just pointing that out, as some people seemed so disgusted that they were asking for money, like it was something new.

[mycroft]

They didn't ask for money

[RosieH]

Hang on, wait. Did someone ask for money?