[Duggeh]

I've tidied this up from the rant I stuck on facebook (IE, made it family safe for the sensitive head-fi audience).

BBC NEWS | Health | Pratchett funds Alzheimer's study

Terry Pratchett. Terrible that he had to develop a brain disease of course, I wouldn't wish that on anyone...

So yes, tragic and all, millions of fans upset they'll get a few less books out of the chap before he either goes doo-dah or dies but today he dropped right out of my "nice chaps" group (I do enjoy Discworld books, they're easy to read and fun enough.) I usually keep one in the toilet, the loo is not a place I like to do anything in the way of difficult reading. Anyway he now belongs to the "selfish, self-interested, morally bankrupt, fools mascaraing as saints chaps" group. He joins Christopher Reeve, Bob Geldof, Bono et al.

He has pledged half a million quid to Alzheimers research. Jolly good stuff Terry, nice of you to be so charitable about it all.

OH. WAIT.

You've just got the disease diagnosed, so really, you're a hollow, selfish man. Your charitable act is rotten on the inside. Pratchett is a selfish git.

Compare this half million in selfish donation money from Pratchett towards the disease which he finds out he has, to the £100 million that Jeremy Beadle raised during his shorter life for charities for illness. Beadle had withered hand syndrome, but his money went to leukaemia research.

When Beadle died, people made jokes. When Pratchett dies, I'll bet there'll be national mourning. It makes me feel a little sick in the back of my mouth.


Understand. Its not the money giving thats the problem. I'm happy to see millionaires giving their money to good causes, it helps do a lot more good than the pennies collected in the tubs on the end of bars, I just makes me furious that its donated in such a massively selfish way.

 

[Teraflame]

People do this often though, donating to charities that help with their or other family members/friend's diseases.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyway he now belongs to the "selfish, self-interested, morally bankrupt, fools mascaraing as saints chaps" group. He joins Christopher Reeve, Bob Geldof, Bono et al.

Does it really matter why he did it ? - it is not as if it is likely to actually help Pratchett much, he will be long dead before any "cure" is likely to emerge.

Would you prefer if the Stars who appeared in Live Aid in 1985 and raised so much moolah had thought, No I won't do it as it is a shallow attempt to cash in on human misery to boost my career and it would be hypocritical and stayed home ?

Quote:

Compare this half million in selfish donation money from Pratchett towards the disease which he finds out he has, to the £100 million that Jeremy Beadle raised during his shorter life for charities for illness. Beadle had withered hand syndrome, but his money went to leukaemia research.

That is great and I applaud him whole heartedly. I still think his TV shows were the most apalling form of shallow, embarassing and demeaning "entertainment" but what he did for good causes was fantastic. It is possible to hold conflicting ideas about people, perhaps they don't teach that at college any more

 

[vagarach]

Two birds with one stone? The payoff from research is knowledge and information, in an open, accessible form.

It would selfish only if he kept the resulting cure for himself. Yes, it wasn't the highest act of selflessness, but self preservation is rather intrinsic to who we are, one can't fully deride the efforts of someone trying to help their own situation, at no resulting detriment to others.

 

[K2Grey]

So if he didn't donate any money at all to anyone, you would have massively higher respect for him? Not sure what your indignation is about. As said before, he will probably be dead before any donation he makes results in any benefit to him, therefore it is irrelevant exactly what disease he donates to fund research for.

 

[Tyson]

Duggeh, after you donate half a million quid to ANY charity then you can btch. Otherwise, ****.

 

[dgbiker1]

Yes... I'm sorry he didn't donate that money to your HP collection.
I had a similar opinion about people donating to causes relating to them... when I was 12 years old. My father's response: "What have you done for anybody?"
Yes he might benefit from it (probably not, looks like he has one foot in the grave already), but so will many other people. Go explain to those people and their families why he shouldn't donate any money for the research.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've tidied this up from the rant I stuck on facebook (IE, made it family safe for the sensitive head-fi audience). BBC NEWS | Health | Pratchett funds Alzheimer's study Terry Pratchett. Terrible that he had to develop a brain disease of course, I wouldn't wish that on anyone... So yes, tragic and all, millions of fans upset they'll get a few less books out of the chap before he either goes doo-dah or dies but today he dropped right out of my "nice chaps" group (I do enjoy Discworld books, they're easy to read and fun enough.) I usually keep one in the toilet, the loo is not a place I like to do anything in the way of difficult reading. Anyway he now belongs to the "selfish, self-interested, morally bankrupt, fools mascaraing as saints chaps" group. He joins Christopher Reeve, Bob Geldof, Bono et al. He has pledged half a million quid to Alzheimers research. Jolly good stuff Terry, nice of you to be so charitable about it all. OH. WAIT. You've just got the disease diagnosed, so really, you're a hollow, selfish man. Your charitable act is rotten on the inside. Pratchett is a selfish git. Compare this half million in selfish donation money from Pratchett towards the disease which he finds out he has, to the £100 million that Jeremy Beadle raised during his shorter life for charities for illness. Beadle had withered hand syndrome, but his money went to leukaemia research. When Beadle died, people made jokes. When Pratchett dies, I'll bet there'll be national mourning. It makes me feel a little sick in the back of my mouth. Understand. Its not the money giving thats the problem. I'm happy to see millionaires giving their money to good causes, it helps do a lot more good than the pennies collected in the tubs on the end of bars, I just makes me furious that its donated in such a massively selfish way.

I just want to quote the post, before it's edited, 'cause I think it's very funny.

 

[jdimitri]

"It is a shock to find out that funding for Alzheimer's research is just 3% of that to find cancer cures."

Try to understand.. he can obviously relate better to something he is experiencing

People who were abused as a child donate money to stop child abuse, people who has experienced or at least saw poverty with their own eyes tend to donate to that.. etc etc

Quote:

He joins Christopher Reeve, Bob Geldof, Bono et al.

Um.. what have you done for the world?

Ps. when you break your leg and it'd cost $5k to fix, would you rather donate that money to cancer or *insert your favourite disease here*?
And in this case, you're actually helping yourself and yourself only

 

[saint.panda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson /img/forum/go_quote.gif Duggeh, after you donate half a million quid to ANY charity then you can btch. Otherwise, ****.

x2

 

[blem]

One too many gin tonics....

 

[lutfisk]

I'm sure the disease just changed his whole outlook on life, to lose all respect for him just because of his donation seems absurd.

 

[setmenu]

Well the positive element is the post does help bring to our attention the relative lack of funding this evil disease seems to get.

But on the other hand that I would be err, somewhat embarrassed to have posted the rest.



.

 

[stewtheking]

Selfish? Maybe.

BUT, he's got a currently incurable brain disease which will begin (or has already begun) to rob him of his most important faculty, his brain. So, he donates $1000000 to research to try and save himself. Yeah? So what? It's not as if his money can only and will only help himself? It's not as if he's paying for a big truckload of medicine for himself, that will take it away from anybody else with the disease.

What you are clearly finding the most objectionable is that he came out in public to show how much of a "generous soul" he was for making the donation. However, in the article itself, he makes more than 1 reference to the fact that it may well be directly helping himself, he hasn't tried to hide it. If he can use his fame to generate more research funding for Alzheimer's (which, as it's not one that gets much public press and attention is sorely under-funded, like many areas of research) then that's clearly a good thing.

The simple (and inconvenient) truth is that because Alzheimer's is usually a disease of the old. This means that any expensive drug that a drug company develops is only going to be used for a short amount of time. It therefore doesn't make economic sense to plough huge amounts of money into the research. If I'd found out that I had Alzheimers, I'd probably try and give some money to people trying to fight the thing that was killing me, and if I could do more by drawing attention to it, I bloody well would.

 

[goldenratiophi]

Hmmm, and you've donated the worth of your audio rigs to research a more worthy disease than Alzheimer's that helps absolutely no one you know or love?

Terry Pratchett probably won't see a cure while he's alive. It's probably hard to understand Alzheimer's or any major disease until you have it. Now that he does, he decided to donate and raise awareness. If somehow a cure is developed during his lifetime due to his donation would that be selfish? It would help thousands of other people just as much as it would help him.

Selfishness would have been putting 500k more down on his own personal treatment. It would only help himself and wouldn't raise any awareness. But you would have never heard about it, so Terry Pratchett would have been more respectable, right?