In the past, the foundation has explicitly stated that they are not looking to fund clinics and specific work. While that kind of charity provides immediate help to people, it does not provide any long-term solutions.
Bill Gates does not have unlimited money. The $40BN or so they manage is not enough to really make an impact if they focus on immediate solutions like helping individual cases. They need to use the money to research better ways and change how governments handle things so that the overall system will be better.
While it's sad about what happened to your nephew, it's much more sad if such diseases remain expensive and difficult to treat and more people suffer in the future. Unfortunately, it is not worth unlimited amount of money to save one child's sight.
Do the math. If the Gates foundation spent $100,000 to help one person out, they'd be able to only help about 400,000 people. That, in the scope of things, is not a whole lot of impact. Their current plan will have far more impact.
I see your point, but considering that there are almost no advances in cancer treatment over last decades (despite all that research), may be it would make some sense to spend some of that money to help sick people? Especially 2 year old kid with such rare type of cancer? In fact trying to help him could be a great research in itself, but looks like it's not something they are interested in.
Even if there were no advancements, which is certainly not the case, no, it would still probably not be a good use of the money. If all forms of cancer are simply unsolvable (not the case), then research would be better spent on researching other diseases, working to change healthcare so the costs are not extremely expensive, and so on.
And why spend $100K+ to save one child? Why not that money, to, say, feed many starving children? Or build housing?
If "trying to help him" would be a form of "great research", then chances are someone would be interested in it. You might need to realise that he is simply unlucky. But not necessarily any more unlucky than a child that gets polio, or has their skin burned off, or is left brain damaged from a car accident.
It's complicated and sad, but denouncing long-term investment because of immediate sad situations will only create more sad situations.
The situation isn't great and that report highlights the problems. And rare cancers are not going to attract research effort until the common ones are solved. But fundamental research is what is required. And I believe that rich philanthropists are going to remain an essential part in funding that research.
"I see your point, but considering that there are almost no advances in cancer treatment over last decades (despite all that research)"
I understand your hopeless feelings, but this is totally false. My uncle is oncologist.There has been a tremendous advance over the last decades, not as much as we want but it improves.
"may be it would make some sense to spend some of that money to help sick people?"
Some of this money is already being spent on them. I don't know in USA but in Europe it is.
For me the best use of this money should be prevention, like less diesel and cancerous particles in cities, better quality food, and less flame retardant in our polar linings or bed foams.
Bill Gates does not have unlimited money. The $40BN or so they manage is not enough to really make an impact if they focus on immediate solutions like helping individual cases. They need to use the money to research better ways and change how governments handle things so that the overall system will be better.
While it's sad about what happened to your nephew, it's much more sad if such diseases remain expensive and difficult to treat and more people suffer in the future. Unfortunately, it is not worth unlimited amount of money to save one child's sight.
Do the math. If the Gates foundation spent $100,000 to help one person out, they'd be able to only help about 400,000 people. That, in the scope of things, is not a whole lot of impact. Their current plan will have far more impact.