To think that this is actually quite dishonest?

[woopdiedoo]

My friend's baby has a medical condition for which treatment will not be provided by the nhs.

They have been fundraising to raise the money needed to treat the condition through various means and events. I have been helping and have been amazed by the generosity of people. They managed to reach their target quite quickly with a large donation by one individual.

Despite being totally skint, I also made some donations/sponsored their events. However, despite already reaching the target they are still find raising. I don't know what they plan to do with the excess money but I rather feel like they are milking the situation now. There is also a charity who provides a set amount for this specific condition although I do not know if they will be accepting this fund also. They have thanked people and announced the amount they have made but omitted to include the large donation and also the charity amount so it still appears that they are short of their target.

AIBU to feel that this is unfair on the very generous people who wanted to help and suggest that they donate excess funds to said charity or should I mind my own business and let them do what they wish with the excess funds?

I don't know if I should say anything. I might say that it would be lovely of them to help other children to donate the excess money and hope they do the right thing. There has been no mention if the intention to do this though.

I don't think it makes you a bad friend that you are wondering exactly why they are still fund raising when they have what they need. Obviously they have gone through a worrying time with their child being ill but we have all read of stories where people have then recovered enough to use the situation to their advantage. If someone says they need X to cure their sick child and they continue to ask when they have already raised XX then it is not unreasonable to wonder why. If it is genuine then mum can explain. If it isn't then..

Because I felt for them. The child was in need so I helped. I didn't know they would raise the amount needed so quickly and then even more.

But that's the point surely? People have donated for a specific cause, not to provide the child with 'extras'. If that's the case, why not say that?

Basically yes it seems dishonest.

Just to be clear, the child is not 'ill' in the conventional sense. The procedure is considered cosmetic, that's why it is not funded through the nhs. Not that I am unsympathetic, I'm sure it has worried them nonetheless and I very much feel for them.

The fact they have omitted the large donation would make me skeptical about their dealings with the money, and what they planned to do with it.

I would expect them to say something along the lines of "although we have reached our target thanks to our generous donors, we still have other costs (eg travel etc) that we have to pay for. If you still feel you could make a donation to make our ds's time in hospital easier then...."

But I've become rather skeptical about a lot of these fundraisers. I know some are very genuine. Some children get wonderful cures that they wouldn't get otherwise, and that's great.
However in some cases where I have knowledge of the particular condition, statements of what they need, and/or what they can access on the NHS are simply not true.

And, as far as I know, there is little regulation. There have been cases in the news where someone has been raising money to "treat" their dc and it's all been fabrication.*

I have wondered if there could be some regulation, perhaps a bigger charity they could work through, that could check whether they're genuine, and look at what they are raising money for and whether they are reasonable aims, with medical advice.

*I am not saying that about the OP's case, at all.

Let me guess, does it have a flat head?

I saw a recent article in my local paper about a baby that needd treatment for flat head syndrome. Treatment was around £2000. There was a number to call to donate and information about fundraising events. I was very as this condition only cosmetic and £2000 is not a lot, the family could have borrowed that amount. Much more worthy causes in my opinion, I am not sure I could have accepted money from the general public and strangers for that myself.

I too don't think yabu in wondering

Perhaps they need it for travel and accommodation costs. You have to be 100% sure of all your facts before assuming stuff like this. Since you are not entitled to a budget sheet or their accounts, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and wish them well.

Perhaps they are continuing to fundraise to raise awareness of the condition/help other families in the same position or hoping to donate to charity. Or might the child need ongoing treatment, or a carer/specialised equipment that the money might be going towards?

This must be a v worrying time for them & they just might not have thought of clarifying what the money is for to all & sundry.

YANBU to wonder I suppose, but I would give them the benefit of the doubt I think.

I do think, for their own protection, they should have registered themselves as a charity at the beginning.

Just out of curiosity, will the treatment definitely make a significant difference to the quality of the baby's life (compared to the financial outlay) and can you understand why the NHS is refusing to provide it ?

Maybe you are right. I don't know enough about this to judge what they will use the money for. I should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Ah, just seen your post about it being cosmetic.... Hmmm. Not sure what I think now.

Ask them?

Or is that too radical of a concept?

Yes, I do think the treatment will benefit the child but I personally feel they should be clearer about the amounts raised with people.

I would congratulate them on how successful their fund raising has been and suggest that if they are lucky enough to raise more than they need any spare can go to a relevant charity.

Then I would quietly and without fuss, reduce my involvement in their fund raising.

I think I will make a suggestion about donating excess money to the charity.

I would want to know exactly what it is the child has that the NHS won't provide treatment for before I donated anything.

Good suggestion piprabbit.

"mind you own, maybe the extra £ will go towards other things the child needs"

It is dishonest to ask people for money to pay for treatment for a sick child and then deliberately raise "extra" for other things the child needs.

In fact, it's a lot like stealing.

They haven't been dishonest about the condition and amount needed. It's just that so far they haven't let everyone know they have reached their target. I guess they still might do that though.

I think it is dishonest. If you give money to help a childs health you would expect it to be spent on that. Obvs their expenses should be included but if the original amount covers that and the amount has been reached they should either stop fund rising or change the message they are putting out. \i would hope they are going to give it to a charity.

YANBU I would be uncomfortable about it to woopdiedoo. If I made a donation towards a child's medical treatment and then found out the family had used the money for the parents' accomodation costs, I would not be happy about it.

YANBU OP.

Further fundraising when they have already made the funds is nothing short of theft. They arent a real charity and there is a limit to what they need to beg from people. The limit has been reached.

If they intend to give the extra money to a real charity then they should say so, but right now people think their donations are going towards surgery, which isnt true.