InsureBlog is another blogger who had been following the Haley Knutsen story, and now he is asking a sensitive, ethical question: after learning on this blog that the Knutsens plan to give the donations they received and will not need to another young patient suffering the same way Haley was. Is this proper, he wonders? Is this any different than some organizations and even government agencies that deferred funds from earmarked donations to other worthy efforts?
Well, there are clearly two issues: the legal issues and the moral issues. And I examine them both in the extended entry.
I think there is a big difference, legally, between what the Knutsens are free to do and what non-profit organizations or government agencies do. Anyone giving them money was giving them money directly. There was no mention of non-profit status, tax deductability etc. You are giving a gift in that situation, plain and simple.
[Frankly I don't really trust fund earmarking in general. For example I don't spend money on meat products, so I would not give to a Second Harvest or Meals on Wheels type charity, even if they claimed I could earmark it for vegetarian products. I just wouldn't take the chance on something I felt so strongly about.]
What the charities and government agencies got in real trouble for was the lack of getting proper authorization and being unable to account for funds properly. In other words, there are rules about moving funds, and the issue is whether or not they followed the rules.
There are not the same rules in the Knutsens' case. As long as they properly report the funds and their dispersal to the IRS I can't imagine there is any legal trouble they would get into.
So, that leaves the moral obligation.
Well, I don't think we would argue over whether they could use the funds to pay off what must be significant medical bills still pending. Or their travel bills in taking Haley back and forth to California as they did. Or even their costs to create their web site and advertise the various functions that were held to help Haley. I think we can easily accept rather broad uses of the money...the question is can they simply pass it on?
The alternatives would be:
a) keep the leftover monies themselves
b) try to return the monies
I think they made the right choice.
Keeping the money themselves, while probably their legal right, would seem sketchy...at the very least I would expect them to donate leftover monies to some kind of charitable organization.
So why not return the monies? Can I vote for the "what a pain in the rear" argument? They got monies from raffles and auctions and Paypal and other ways. Some ways are going to be easier to trace than others. Which would likely result in them only being able to return some of the money anyway...which would be unfair.
And seriously, if I opened my wallet to a girl I never even met, and they asked me would I prefer my $100 back or given to another child I never met...which do you think I would request? Of course, some of the donors knew haley. But I'm betting if they knew her and observed the outpouring of support first-hand they were pretty inspired by it and would do the same.
IMHO: this option was the best possible choice. It ensure that people who tried to reach out directly to one individual child will still help one individual child, instead of putting their money into a big, melting, charitable pot. I think it captures the spirit of the intent of the donors.
And if there are donors out there who want their money back, I expect they'll let the Kntusens know. But I wouldn't hold my breath...I'm betting this is a purely theoretical debate.
Comments