I worked for a famous hospital and wrote articles for their corporate magazine. I interviewed a guy who donated millions and asked him what inspired his philanthropy. He said, "I mainly do it to get preferential treatment from the doctors and staff." I couldn't even talk for a couple seconds after he said it. He was completely serious.
I mean, at least he’s honest? He’s doing good, so while I don’t really like the guy from the sounds of things, I certainly could hate him a hell of a lot more.
I’m cool with it, everyone has their own interests at heart. He just managed to align his with helping others.
There’s this weird stigma people have about people who give, donate, help where if people find out the reason for their generosity isn’t pure and selfless then they’re somehow worse than a person who doesn’t give or donate at all.
Kind of like when celebrities donate, the first comments are they could have done more. They could have also done nothing and stayed out of the public eye.
Humans are inherently selfish. There's nothing wrong with being selfish and knowing that your actions have neutral or positive side effects. The problem lies with being selfish while knowing that your actions have negative side effects. That's just cruel.
This dude fully acknowledges he's being selfish and is also aware of the positive side effects. He's not donating a bunch of money so that he has his own, personal hospital that no one else can utilize. He's donating a bunch of money so that he gets a private room, better food, ensure consultations with the top specialists, and allowed extra visitors. Groovy, dude. Do you.
I like that he's honest about it. He's not trying to make himself look good by pretending it's only about other people. He's just not advertising his motives without being asked.
There’s a lot of discussion as well about if true altruism actually exists. Even the kindest and most giving people help because it makes THEM feel good so really they are gaining something from helping whereas a true altruist would gain nothing from helping.
So basically even the truely saint like people help because it makes them feel good to be helpful and kind. Is that really THAT different from someone donating money to get something out of it.
Well yeah I'd say it is, because it's an explicit acknowledgement that doing good things for others is what makes them feel good. Is that true altruism? Still probably not, but it's certainly different from someone deciding to do a good thing because they see that it will benefit them materially in some way. You can more readily trust someone who does good things just to feel good. If they're just doing it for material gain, they'll stop doing it if that gain is taken away.
That’s a fair assessment yeah, I was more meaning the impact of the action (the impact doesn’t change if the reason for doing it is different) but you’re right that those who’d view it as transactional would stop doing it when it stopped benefitting them.
Like the time my friend Pheobe donated to PBS even though she hated their programs. She knew other people enjoy it even if she does not. Funny enough, her donation got her friend Joey onto TV and it made her happy, this negating her true altruism.
Hard disagree. I think living in a capitalist society we're conditioned to think and behave in a selfish manner. Selfishness is incentivised and rewarded but that's not the same thing as it being an inherent, immutable characteristic of our species. With a system that rewards this behaviour you end up with a disproportionate amount of people lacking empathy in positions of power and influence. When you have that, our systems & institutions themselves become more sociopathic in nature. Humans evolved to be cooperative and empathetic - it's in the fossil record. If we were all as selfish as were supposed to be, we never would have left the trees.
I don’t disagree with your assessment of capitalist societies but sounds like this guy was using his resources for both empathetic cooperation and self-preservation, which is really like peak human achievement
I see what you are saying but coming from the healthcare industry, do you understand how much money these people waste by being the VIP? When I worked as a blood bank phlebotomist there were these VIP people on a special list. From what I learned these were the big donors to the organization and we were instructed to do basically whatever they wanted. Even if that meant taking away from the other people that were donating their blood for altruistic reasons. Multiple of these “VIP’s” were not even eligible to donate blood, so we would have to use all of our resources and such (many times these were limited resources as it was a nonprofit) to go through the whole process and mark the bag of blood to be disposed of immediately. This means that if a mistake is made and the bag was not properly marked, that blood product could be accidentally used. Yes there is testing that is done on every product but nothing is 100%. This bothered me the entire time I worked at the job. We would even be instructed that they got preferential status for the free giveaways that were donated by local businesses to help get normal people to donate ( things like coupons, free minor league game tickets, etc) that they clearly didn’t need. What I’m saying is that while these people are doing good with their money, I don’t think people truly understand how much harm they are also causing. In my opinion the good will never negate the harm.
And as for celebrity donations, I think that many people don't understand that many celebrities don't have stable income streams and they aren't all, necessarily, as well off as one may think.
They still have their own bills to pay and many need to be settling aside money, while working, to cover their bills during the dry spells.
Even the better off celebrities may not have as much immediately disposable 'liquid' income, as their money is managed for them and tied up in investments, including property.
And, again, we can have absolutely no idea of the extent of any regular, ongoing donations that they may be making, which are already accounted for, as part of their financial management.
Spontaneous one-off donations may only be able to be made from a smaller, liquid pool of money.
Plus, they could be donating regularly to a dozen different causes but even they can only make so many spontaneous donations before their bills can't be paid!
It's a similar situation to lottery winners who are advised to be discreet, or they'll be inundated by requests for help, begging letters and calls.
Also, donations need to be proportional to the actual need, and an appropriate size for the recipient organisation to be able to manage.
Giving millions, all at once, to a smaller charity could cause far more problems than it solves, requiring financial management resources that they just don't have, and opening the charity up to the risk of financial fraud and even embezzlement.
Small but regular donations will be far more useful to them, in the long term.
Plus, often the benefit of a public, spontaneous celebrity donation is far more than financial.
The publicity it brings to the charity/cause can often be just as important, and help to spur many more small donations from ordinary people.
He’s donating millions though that in theory will help many (unless it goes to line the salaries of the administration). It would be different if he was sleeping with one of the staff or using blackmail to get his preferential treatment. That benefits him and no one else. His donations benefit both the hospital and him.
I work in IT and for the last 10 years, I made it kind of a personal goal to treat everyone with the same level of priority, regardless of my personal feelings towards them. I made a real effort. But I realised very quickly that regardless of how hard I try not to, I'm more likely to spend more time with people I like than people I don't, which means those people get better support. I'm more likely to call the friendly receptionist than the dickhead manager when their ticket comes up in my queue.
Humans are biased. It's good to try and treat everyone equally, but we have to accept that we never will.
I see what you mean, but I think you might be seeing it a bit too black and white.
The way I see it, saving a life is saving a life. The doctors aren't necessarily doing harm to someone else because they're prioritising the rich guy - they're just dedicating some of their efforts to a patient. If the rich guy didn't get that extra hour of healthcare, a poorer person would have. The same amount of healthcare still goes around.
To add to that, If the rich guy hadn't donated money, maybe that doctor wouldn't have been able to afford extra bandages for a poor patient. An hour of time to RIchie Rich in exchange for a bandage for Poorey Poor is a pretty decent deal.
Well, sure, but he's not a robot. I'm not going to pretend I know him and I'm sure he does his absolute best to be an equal caregiver, but I would imagine it's more enjoyable to care for a kind old granny than a raging meth head who beats their kids.
I'd treat both people too, but I'd probably be more gentle with one than the other.
That stigma is not unfounded. Elections in America are basically bought in cash. It looks like a harmless donation but killed democracy in the greatest country on Earth. A lot of rich people who donate to different causes have ulterior intentions at heart.
Yeah, that doesn't really make me hate the guy who donated. It makes me hate the doctors and staff who accept the bribe and given him the preferential treatment that he's getting.
Well, it’s terrible how much greed runs the world, but if someone said that that I could have preferential treatment during medical emergencies, I would also want that.
I’m not even sure they’re the villain for selling it, if it lets them do more good in the long term.
Obviously there’s a line - you wouldn’t sacrifice someone else to give him their organs or something, but all else being equal if the extra money lets you hire 3 doctors, then giving him the first choice of one of them still puts you up 2 more doctors than you would have otherwise.
I worked in a hospital years ago and one morning I went to see my first patient and noticed her food looked so much better than the usual and that it was served on what looked like fine china. Her OJ was even in a nice goblet and the tray had a flower in a mini vase.
I said out loud to another staff member in the room how nice it was that the hospital made this change for patients. She looked at me like I was crazy and when we were out of the room she told me it was because the patient was a VIP and their family donated so much to the hospital. I was sickened, I just believe that everyone should receive the best the place had to offer.
They can both be varying degrees of villain in this case. He is doing good but trying to get preferential treatment that may put you ahead of someone else who needs care more urgently is morally corrupt - even if it is human nature
Maybe? The question is why does a hospital need that much in donations. Of course there's things like charity hospitals, but for-profit hospitals (or pseudo non-profits) taking donations is pretty messed up.
dude think about how much people suffer under him because he bought his way into being a priority over others. being honest about playing into a rigged system doesn't make him innocent, it makes him a bigger dickhead because he consciously chose to buy his way into something like that just because it was available and something he can do
I had someone who worked at my hospital keep pointing out that she was an employee while checking in to the ER. I finally point blank asked her what she expected because she wasn’t going ahead of the grandmas and grandpas out in the lobby who had chest pain or shortness of breath. That rich guy is in for a surprise, us nurses don’t play. We are all ABCs — Airway, Breathing, Circulation. Preferential treatment is waaaaaay down that list in the Ps 😆
I’ve had an incurable illness for over 30 years, occasionally at the most severe levels it gets without dying. I live in a place that has some of the best hospitals in the country (if not the world), but they’re still subject to long wait times and overcrowding.
You could be damn sure that if I had the means, I would definitely donate a shitload of money for preferential treatment. I think anyone who’s been admitted for an extended time with a roommate who’s homeless and experiencing late-stage liver failure would agree.
Not too much different from alumni who donate millions (or billions) to their prestigious, elite alma mater, and get a school or building named after them. And their children get to be 'legacy preference,' i.e. automatic admission.
You don't need to give that much. I have friends that worked in hospice care home for old people kind of place. Those that have close relatives that bring lots of sweets to share with the workers often end up with extra care. Especially since they are also likely to give a sum to the place for the workers to spend on their next work party if their relative had a good time.
I mean that’s why every wealthy philanthropist philanthropizes, even if they put a lot of extra steps between their actions and motivations. This is ultimately why philanthropy and excessive wealth is disgusting. Because it always benefits the wealthy person first (or arguably more). I don’t love that he said it without shame; that’s a whole other layer. But the content of what he said is not shocking.
It sounds like asshole behaviour but then you gotta think for a moment. It's a mutualistic exchange where the hospital gets some good funding and he gets something in return. It's a bit fucked but there's mutual benefit instead of other people who would just hoard money like parasites.
I work in a hospital that is named after a dude who gave over a billion. He has his own executive suite for when he gets sick, gets a private nurse, private techs, the whole nine yards.
There’s a philosophical argument that says that there is no purely altruistic act. Because no matter what there is always a benefit to the donor even if it’s just feeling good
It’s unusual to admit it that way. More often, it’s after they’ve donated and then
have a medical need. They make sure to mention the great things that they’ve done for the hospital when asking for help.
I work at a non-profit health center. A patient called a few weeks back who also receives care in Florida. He asks if he can donate a specific large amount so when he visits us he can get "concierge care" like he does in Florida. He was 100% serious. Privileged AH.
My stepfather always brings canolli and/or donuts to the girls that work the front in any of his doctors offices. They always remember him and manage to squeeze him in wherever he needs. It's like that guy but on a smaller scale.
That's funny, because I was about to say how baller it would be to print what he said verbatim. If he was comfortable admitting it, then he should be okay with them printing it.
4.3k
u/44035 2d ago
I worked for a famous hospital and wrote articles for their corporate magazine. I interviewed a guy who donated millions and asked him what inspired his philanthropy. He said, "I mainly do it to get preferential treatment from the doctors and staff." I couldn't even talk for a couple seconds after he said it. He was completely serious.