
Click here, save a life, for real - pg
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/13/click_here_save_a_life_for_real/
======
pg
Subtitle: reporter tries and tries to remain mean in the face of the Watsis,
but finds he just can't do it.

Reading this article was like watching someone try to break into a really
secure system. The reporter tried every trick in the book, and none worked. I
went back and counted the number of different avenues along which he tried to
attack, and there were no less than 11: Watsi's office, Chase's language,
neocolonialism, race, the focus on patient care, Silicon Valley, California
idealism, Watsi's investors, how real the connection is between donor and
patient, why they don't fund patients in the US, and the realism of Chase's
dreams. The dude is like a cynicism machine.

What's interesting about this guy though is that he's not unique in this
respect. He merely represents the default/lazy reporter m.o. taken to such an
extreme that it becomes a caricature. Controversy generates page views, and
it's really easy to create. In his case I'm sure this is not an act, but an
instance of someone's personality being naturally well suited to the work he's
doing. But those of you who might one day have to deal with the press might
want to keep this article in mind as an example.

~~~
mcphilip
I read the article having never heard of Watsi. To me it read as proactively
addressing concerns I may encounter when considering participation. I came
away with a very positive view of Watsi and have visited the website and
started doing more research.

Who knows, this is just one person's take, but I found the article beneficial.

~~~
pg
Yeah, I agree that the end result is beneficial for Watsi, and I regret
hijacking this thread with meta discussion about journalism when it could have
been about Watsi instead.

~~~
michaelwww
I agree, some of it was a little off-putting, but Andrew Leonard is one of the
better writers at Salon and I thought he was just trying to address the
stereotype about "Silly Con" valley and speak against it. He wrote: "Watsi
must also bear the misfortune of coming of age during a simmering backlash
against Silicon Valley" and then goes on to hold Watsi up as a counter
example. I'm not aware of this simmering backlash against Silicon Valley, but
it must exist somewhere for him to write about it this way.

------
tptacek
To the article's concern about selecting specific patients to donate to: I
actually have the same problem, and found myself (irrationally) trying to pick
the least photogenic or narratively appealing patients to donate to, and then
giving up and spreading donations across the whole pool of patients†.

And my point is: Watsi should have a button that would, at some minimum
donation floor, fund every patient equally. Make it a little expensive! I
would push that button every time, and you'd be harnessing a broken part of my
thought process to make me make better decisions.

Also: man, does Watsi need an API. We're doing more public contests soon! Big
ones! It would be freaking awesome if I could plug my analytics stuff directly
into Watsi so I could make automatic donations.

† _Before you assume this is some kind of humblebrag, know that I 'm not
donating my own money; we send $20 to Watsi for everyone who finishes our
crypto challenges, which are_ a lot of work, _so in a real sense it 's the
challenge-takers who are doing the funding here._

~~~
tchock23
An API would be awesome. I actually have a specific project kicking around in
the back of my mind that I would launch solely around a Watsi API. Here's to
hoping they see this thread...

------
edw519
To this inevitable complaint:

 _Others wonder whether focusing donations on individuals, no matter how
worthy, diverts funding and attention from efforts aimed at tackling the more
systemic causes of inadequate healthcare in impoverished parts of the world._

I can only respond with "The Starfish Parable":

One day, an old man was walking along a beach that was littered with thousands
of starfish that had been washed ashore by the high tide. As he walked he came
upon a young boy who was eagerly throwing the starfish back into the ocean,
one by one.

Puzzled, the man looked at the boy and asked what he was doing. Without
looking up from his task, the boy simply replied, "I'm saving these starfish,
Sir".

The old man chuckled aloud, "Son, there are thousands of starfish and only one
of you. What difference can you make?"

The boy picked up a starfish, gently tossed it into the water and turning to
the man, said, "It made a difference to that one!"

~~~
cgag
It's more like "with the same effort you could save thousands of starfish,
just not the ones right in front of you" than "what difference can you make".
Which is certainly something worth considering.

~~~
justinsteele
Can you? If we took the money donated to Watsi, let these people suffer/die
instead, and used it all to solve an "underlying problem" \- would it help
more people?

Without a lot of research that answer seems difficult to get to. I think in
the interim, helping these people is a fine use of some people's disposable
income.

Also, consider that money going to Watsi does not necessarily stop money going
to a different/more effective cause. Many people donating to this may not
donate to a different idea, and vice versa.

~~~
cgag
I'm not necessarily talking about solving underlying problems like lack of
good healthcare, I was actually just thinking about the idea that if you have
1000 dollars to give, it's worth considering the trade offs between giving it
to one person for a surgery, or buy 200 bed nets to protect people from
malaria or protect 200 kids from developmental problems caused by parasitic
worms: [http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-
charities](http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities).

~~~
JoshuaDavid
It actually seems to be a fairly close call. It seems that bed nets prevent
about 1 death from malaria for every $2000 or so [1], whereas the quality of
life of some of the Watsi patients can be significantly improved for $500 to
$1000 [see 2]. So the question is what the relative value of each is, and
while I think the balance weighs in favor of malaria prevention, it's not a
clear-cut decision.

[1]
[http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/ins...](http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-
treated-nets)

[2]
[https://watsi.org/profile/8d8d49907cc9-hussein](https://watsi.org/profile/8d8d49907cc9-hussein)

------
GuiA
I donated through Watsi for the first time yesterday. A few hours later, I
received an email saying that the patient I had funded had raised all the
money she needed to get her medical care.

That was a pretty great feeling. I certainly won't miss the $20 I gave, and I
got to see how they would make a concrete difference for someone who didn't
get as lucky as I in the humanity lottery.

If my memory serves me right, this is the first time I've ever given to a
charity (I've donated to Wikileaks when they had server cost issues, that's
the only other instance I remember - having been a student for most of my
adult life so far, I never really had the disposable income for donations).
When people approach me on the street to give money for their organization X,
I find it extremely invasive and have no concrete desire to give. How do I
know my money is actually going to serve a real purpose?

I love how transparent Watsi is, and how I can trust my donation to have a
real meaning.I really hope they're around for a long, long time.

------
dpweb
Watsi really stands out as a startup that's really doing some good. Let's be
honest, most startups you read about aren't really a measurable positive force
in the world.

Only in a "first-world" country would be imaginable the complaint, "people in
rich countries deciding who gets treatment in poor countries" shameful! Only
an idiot would make that judgement.

The PICTURES make it real. Real human beings. It encourages people to give.

I'm no bleeding heart, but more VCs, entrepreneurs, and (especially) people of
means should be using more of their vast resources to start and promote more
things like Watsi.

~~~
king_jester
> Only in a "first-world" country would be imaginable the complaint, "people
> in rich countries deciding who gets treatment in poor countries" shameful!
> Only an idiot would make that judgement.

That judgement is actually quite accurate. Watsi may do something good, but it
does work with existing charities to provide medical services. Why charity is
needed and the role charity plays in systemic issues in this and other
countries is an important thing to examine.

------
adammil
If anyone from Watsi is reading, your auto-replies for Contact Us are still
saying this:

"Thanks for the message! Our entire team is currently in Nepal and will be
slow / unable to respond to email until Wednesday, 9/4.

Looking forward to connecting with you."

~~~
gracegarey
Fixed!

------
ipince
"the way Watsi works is that we accept every single patient’s profile before
the patient receives care. Just like an insurance company. We’re not
retroactively approving things. We guarantee funding. We won’t take a profile
down until it is fully funded. No other crowd-funding platform that I know of
works this way.”

Isn't this exactly how Kiva works? AFAIK, profiles on Kiva have already
received funding from their respective microlending institution. Kiva then
pays the microlending institution from the funds they raised. That's a reason
why repayment rates are so high; the borrowers have already been vetted and
given the loan...

[http://www.kiva.org/about/how/even-more](http://www.kiva.org/about/how/even-
more)

~~~
kmfrk
Watsi doesn't take loans, and focuses entirely on healthcare, from what I
understand.

I think the narrow focus is part of the charm of Watsi.

~~~
ipince
Sure... What I meant to point out is that the model is that everyone that
appears on the website has already been funded. This is the same model Kiva
uses, and the model can be a little misleading for people who think they're
actually crowdfunding someone's health/loan. The health coverage or loan has
already happened by the time the users see the faces of the beneficiaries on
the site.

~~~
tptacek
I have no idea why this level of detail is interesting to donors. Money is
fungible, and it is a reasonable and accurate assumption that a donation that
you make to a particular Watsi patient is _enabling_ treatment for that
person.

~~~
ipince
Couple things: \- Donors use some criteria to decide which person to give
money to. I guess this is more relevant to Kiva than Watsi, where a donor
potentially evaluates the project the loan is funding, its potential for
success, etc. In reality, your decision doesn't make (that much) difference at
that point. The loan is already out. \- More importantly to me, when I found
about about this model, I just felt misled. I felt tricked into believing
something that wasn't true, and it made me slightly lose trust in the company.
Not a big deal, I still fully support them and recognize that the model works,
but it can be kind of misleading to donors.

~~~
tptacek
I'm really having a hard time synthesizing misdirection from Watsi's simple
promise that they will themselves personally guarantee funding of any selected
patient. That promise is the only detail your comment seems to have uncovered,
and it's somehow a bad thing?

------
adammil
Watsi wants your credit card number including CVV to simply register for an
account. This is before choosing anyone to fund. How about I only provide
payment information at "check out" instead?

~~~
gracegarey
Sorry if this is unclear, but you don't need to create an account at all to
donate. All you have to do is enter an amount and click "Fund Treatment."
Creating an account just saves your payment info for quick checkout in the
future.

------
jackgavigan
The direct connection between donor and beneficiary is an interesting new
business model for the charity sector. In the UK, several large humanitarian
aid charities have been put under the spotlight after it was revealed that 30
charity executives are paid over £100,000 (over $150,000)[1].

If a charity can guarantee (and, ideally, show evidence ex post facto) that
100% of my donation will go to the program/activity/whatever I want to
support, and that their administration overheads will be covered from other
funding sources (e.g. corporate donations), that would eliminate any concern I
might have that a large chuck of my donation would end up being spent on
swanky offices and fat-cat executives.

There is a big opportunity here for Watsi to build a platform that can be re-
purposed for other types of charitable activities.

1: [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-
charities-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-charities-
hit-back-at-salary-criticism-after-revelation-that-30-bosses-paid-more-
than-100000-a-year-8747591.html)

------
mcphilip
I wonder what would be the impact on the amount of funding if donors were only
shown pictures of patients after choosing to donate? Say donors could still
get the rest of the demographics data, just not a picture. Would this lead to
"non-photogenic" patients receiving equal care? Or is the "non-photogenic"
patient issue not a problem in the first place?

~~~
sspiff
Why not show "popular" photos more often, with a little footer at the bottom
"picture might not match the saved person", with the rest of the information
be accurate.

For me, the fact that it would save more lives would compensate for the lying
to people.

------
ahk
'Brown people' hospitals will just raise prices if they know patients have
'white people' funds. So this has the potential to make medical care
inaccessible to those not having 'proper connections' to 'white people'.

~~~
unimpressive
Watsi is only used in extraordinary cases. (Otherwise they would have plenty
of patients for people to fund.) I doubt that the money they're pouring into
'Brown people' hospitals is even a dent in their total volume of revenue.

IIRC, the patients aren't even told Watsi is an option until a doctor on the
ground identifies them as a potential candidate.

------
mistercow
>To some critics, there’s something distinctly neocolonialist and off-putting
about the spectacle of well-off do-gooders in the U.S. choosing which brown
people live and die in the developing world based on who has a cuter picture
on Watsi.

Given that they're having trouble keeping up with donor demand, that hardly
seems like a problem, at least for now. And just as the pictures and stories
are a clever hack to get people to donate and allow them to feel more meaning
from their donations, I'm sure that more hacks can be invented to get more
money to the less cute patients if that becomes a problem in the future.

------
kyro
Love what Watsi is doing. Do you guys plan on crowdfunding for larger
initiatives in the future, like shipping vitamins, drugs, condoms, etc to
third-world countries?

~~~
jc00ke
No, we're focused on treatment, not prevention. We have funded a few
malnutrition cases, and we would like to fund more, but prevention isn't
really our thing. There are other orgs, like the Gates Foundation, that are
doing a great job at tackling that side of the coin.

------
JimmyM
They don't seem to do GiftAid - is that because it's based in America, or
could they theoretically claim GiftAid from the tax I pay?

[http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/individuals/giving/gift-
aid.htm](http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/individuals/giving/gift-aid.htm)

~~~
jc00ke
We just learned about GiftAid not too long ago. I'll pass this on to our
finance guy to take a look, thanks!

------
tchock23
When I first heard about Watsi, absolutely none of the author's negative
points entered my mind. Now I'm kind of pissed that I'll think about them when
I think of Watsi.

It doesn't change my donation behavior, but just makes me angry at this kind
of journalism.

------
stevewilhelm
I would really like to see Watsi team up with Partners In Health
[http://www.pih.org](http://www.pih.org) , my favorite health related charity.

~~~
tptacek
They already do!!! They have, from the jump!

------
timmyelliot
Because of that title alone, I won't click.

Yeah, I'm probably being shallow, but I take it as a challenge to my personal
illusion that I'm not easily manipulated.

~~~
floydenstein
Unless that was their plan all along, in which case, you fell for it.

~~~
ianstallings
In poker, we call that _leveling_. Damn it! Now I have to read it. I won't go
through life knowing someone failed to coerce me.

~~~
mistercow
"Harry, smiling, had asked Professor Quirrell what level he played at, and
Professor Quirrell, also smiling, had responded, _One level higher than you_."

------
cuttooth
Way to shill for yourself.

"But along with the cash, Watsi has also raised eyebrows. To some critics,
there’s something distinctly neocolonialist and off-putting about the
spectacle of well-off do-gooders in the U.S. choosing which brown people live
and die in the developing world based on who has a cuter picture on Watsi.
Others wonder whether focusing donations on individuals, no matter how worthy,
diverts funding and attention from efforts aimed at tackling the more systemic
causes of inadequate healthcare in impoverished parts of the world. Watsi must
also bear the misfortune of coming of age during a simmering backlash against
Silicon Valley. We’ve gotten tired of hearing the name brand Silicon Valley
bigwigs who have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Watsi talk about
the merits of “disrupting” existing industries, when all that really seems to
end up happening is that a few people get rich while the competitive screws
tighten on the many."

You have an urge to save a life? Make a direct donation yourself or to one of
the hundreds of charities that exist. Some charities are certainly better than
others, but the options are out there. Watsi is a pathetic excuse for a
"company" where this sort of pick-and-choose comes across as a form of good
when it's really quite creepy and saddening.

Startups don't need to exist in order to do good, and you don't need to hide
behind the veil of backing a company in order to seem like a good person. Give
someone the money yourself or go visit those countries if you really give a
shit, because there's more to their problems than individuals who happen to
need medical care. Most of them don't have any at all.

~~~
pg
If you're going to be this nasty, you'd better be right, and in this case
you're not. If I went in person to Nepal to find people who need help, I still
wouldn't do as good a job as Watsi.

The one useful thing about your comment is that it gives us a way to measure
the background radiation of mean-spiritedness online. Watsi is about as good
as anything ever gets. The founders are as selfless as anyone I've known. And
they are not merely unrealistic do-gooders. They know well what things are
like in the field. If people wholly focused on doing good and very effective
at it still manage to get attacked online, that's therefore the baseline for
being attacked online.

~~~
cuttooth
It still doesn't mean that their implementation is right, because it's not.

Here, let me elaborate: Stop trying to tie yourself to the individual and look
at the greater problem. It's a west coast elitist mentality that gives you the
"hey, look at this person I'm helping out!" Ever see those commercials they've
been doing for decades now where you make an generic donation, and the charity
sends you photos of people you're helping? That's a much better approach.

~~~
read
I am trying to understand you.

You might be genuinely interested in helping others but other people might
not. People are not equally determined in overcoming any obstacle in their way
to help someone in need. So making it easier for people to help would let more
people receive help.

Do you agree this would be helpful to more people?

What striked me as interesting in your comment is how passionate you are about
it. It's the kind of comment someone honest and genuinely caring makes after
they've been burned. If someone treated you unfairly it can become an impetus
for you to do great things.

I also wish HN readers tried to be more understanding.

(Note: I did not downvote you.)

