[Johnny555]

It may seem innocuously altruistic, but there are bigger implications of this work. If Watsi donors are paying for the healthcare of individuals in developing countries, what incentive do those developing country governments have to build functioning health systems?

Is it somehow better for the patients if they are allowed to suffer or die because they can't afford the treatment?

Perhaps it's true that in the long run, crowdfunding individual treatments gets in the way of the government building a health care system, I'm not sure that's true. Look at the dismal state of public health care in the USA, one of the richest countries in the world.... it seems debatable that much poorer countries are even capable of coming up with a workable public health care system.

But in the meantime, why not help some people out that otherwise couldn't afford the healthcare?

I understand that it can be degrading to have to put your healthcare plight on the internet and beg for donations to survive... on the other hand, what other option do these people have today?

[hunter23]

Anecdotally I've heard from my partner who works in public healthcare that a lot of poorer countries are coming up with more sustainable health care systems because they have the luxury of learning fromthe mistakes of US and other western countries. Most 3rd world countries are building out their infrastructure now so they have benefit of any greenfield operation.

The US is suffering from the healthcare version of crippling technical debt (and cultural issues around that).

[Viliam1234]

This seems like the "Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics". If there is a problem unrelated to you, under this concept you are free to ignore it, and no one will blame you, because it is someone else's problem. But when you do anything to help, you become entangled with the problem, and then of course people can blame you for any imperfection.

https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...