And I’m saying that you can’t possibly know how much it costs the person in question.
Kids’ families deal with their situations out of love, and because they have no choice.
Acknowleding that the situation can be very sad, no, it really does not cost them anything other than a short amount of time.
Yes they do. But that does not make the circumstances easier to bear, so if somebody refuses to participate because they’re too shy or think it would be too depressing, I don’t think that’s a good excuse.
I agree with this. If I choose to support my local cancer support chapter and ASPCA, does it make me a jerk because I choose not to donate to AIDS research? We all only have so much time/money/emotional resources for charity donations.
Speaking as someone with a younger sister that has a host of birth defects that has made it impossible for her to ever live a normal life, I don’t think it does and I agree with Misnomer. It’s my family’s burden to bear, and no one owes us anything for the circumstances of her birth.
I don’t see how this is a comparable situation, since we’re not talking about financial support for Make A Wish.
You don’t know that. The point you seem to be missing is that for some people, the psychological and/or emotional cost may be overwhelming. For many of us, it may be a degree of sadness/discomfort/depression that we can bear, but for others it could be seriously traumatic. For them, it could be too much to ask.
I have to say I think this is sort of over-simplistic. My father’s best friend was diagnosed with a form of fast-moving early-onset Alzheimer’s, and rapidly declined to where he had to be placed in a home. My father never went to see him, indeed never saw him again. I considered, and still do consider, that a failing on my father’s part, because I felt that he owed his best friend more than that.
But it was something my dad was just not emotionally equipped to do. Whether it was because of the acute sadness of the situation, or the sense that “there but for the grace of God go I,” or too much investment in his own ideas of manliness, which would not allow him to place himself in a situation where he would break down and cry – I don’t know.
I still think he should have gone, as I agree with you these athletes should go. But had he gone, it would have cost him a heck of a lot more than “a short amount of time.” Perhaps that’s true of them as well.
I understand what you and others are saying, I just don’t think much of it as a reason for refusing to participate. Refusing to have dinner or throw a football around or engage in a similar activity with a sick kid sounds more like the result of self-absorption than trauma even if trauma might theoretically be a cause.
He doesn’t need a reason not to participate, it’s not his family and (I presume) its not in his contract with the Steelers. Yes, it would be kind and charitable if he would comply and go by for an hour, but there are a whole bunch of kinda and charitable things any one of us could be doing besides puttering around on the Dope. Including: playing Hungry Hungry Hippo down at the local peds hospital. I mean, I’m not a huge kid person but I’ve been sick and laid up in the hospital for days, I’m pretty sure you don’t have to be Ben Roethlisberger to make a kid smile and laugh.
The difference is that Ben Roethlisberger was asked for by name but not us. But what if I were to say to my coworkers: “Hey a whole bunch of us are going to play with the cancer kids at the hospital after work tomorrow, you’re coming, right?” Then are you (general you) an asshole if you say no? What if you’re great with kids and have a juggling routine and I already told them you were coming? Personally I think it would be kind and charitable if you were to go, but being uncharitable =/= unethical, and IMHO only the latter makes you an asshole. (That said, we can certainly disagree on the definition of ‘asshole’)
Footnote: Hypothetically, assume this story is true, etc.
I think it plays out the same in terms of time, though. A person might decide to support one endeavor, such as Big Brothers Big Sisters and give them money, time, or both. I think many people choose to become involved with a particular cause because they have a personal connection, perhaps that person benefited from that kind of mentoring program in his own childhood. If the person gives of his time, say, one weekend a month, it’s hard to claim that he should have given that time to another cause instead, such as Make A Wish (and the reverse, I don’t think that the Make A Wish person should be thought less of because he didn’t give time to BBBS).
I think celebrities have the additional pressure that many, many groups are asking for their time and attention, and there is more potential for rejections of requests to be held up in a public forum. It’s perfectly understandable if a celebrity decides to commit to one particular kind of public service, whether it’s assisting the homeless, or disabled veterans, the elderly, or seriously ill children. They can’t possibly say yes to every request they receive, and focusing on an issue helps them manage that.
I don’t know anything about Ben Roethlisberger, my post was meant in general.
Okay, I can buy that maybe some people are just so uncomfortable with death that they can’t stand to be in the same room with a dying person. However, I think a good, non-jerkish celebrity would still make some effort to try to acknowledge the kid and brighten his day. If he couldn’t handle visiting the kid, the very least he could have done would have been to send the kid a signed photo, a jersey, something like that.
Ignoring the request surely hurt the kid’s feelings. Who but a jerk would do that to a dying kid?
Being in a “celebrity” or “entertainer” kind of position, it’s expected that you should show some courtesy and respect for your fans. If you’re a celebrity and you don’t, sure, you’re within your legal/contractual rights, but you ARE a jerk.
You make some good points here. To me, there’s a difference between going through that kind of experience with an old friend and with someone you don’t know, and don’t have to interact with again if you choose, but who has said specifically that a little time would make a big difference. Maybe that’s slicing the difference too thin, but that’s how it looks to me.
And if you’re running down my street on fire and I’m holding a hose, I don’t have to put you out. I don’t know you, I didn’t set you on fire, and my family needs water too; it costs money. Still, if I let you burn, people would probably call me an asshole, and I think they’d have a good case.
I’ll probably regret responding with an analogy since I don’t want to toss comparisons back and forth for the next week- but the point is, this is a pretty specific and minor thing. A lot of athletes already have charitable foundations and many already visit sick kids in the hospitals, for example. And Make A Wish negotiates. They don’t call Famous Person Y and say “can you come visit this kid at 3 p.m. Tuesday?” They try to work things around the granting person’s schedule.
Generally, for reasons I gave in response to sugar and spice’s post, I don’t see a wish competing with somebody’s other charity work. If in theory it somehow did, I wouldn’t say the person is being an asshole. But I don’t think that’s a real world scenario.
I am fascinated by these questions and I wonder if Ayn Rand has a newsletter that addresses both instances (guy on fire, Make-a-Wish) that I could subscribe to. Sadly, I don’t think anyone at the SDMB has ever tried to explain what Ayn Rand might have to say about matters of ethics and morality. Or jerkiness.
I made a big enough mistake using an analogy. Please don’t bring Rand into this. 
I used to work for AmFar (American Foundation for AIDS Research) back in the early 90’s and we would contact celebrities all the time to attend functions or help out.
We never took it personally when they declined - they would get hit from hundreds of non-profits all the time. It is better for a celebrity to pick one non-profit they care about than simply allow their name to be added to a list, but never really do anything.
We had one celebrity who wanted to help us out and quietly donated a nice chunk of change, but was already heavily involved with a charity that hit closer to home. We appreciated their donation, but fully understood why we were not their priority.
Sure, the AIDS charity won’t notice or care that you chose not to write them a check. However, if an AIDS orphan had personally requested a meeting with you because you were the kid’s hero - especially if your livelihood was based on entertaining people like that kid - yeah, I think you would be a jerk for saying no to that because it wasn’t your pet cause.
The key, to me, is that this Ben Whatever guy chose to ignore the request knowing that a kid would be personally hurt and disappointed by it - a kid who probably had very little else to be excited about or look forward to. Ben’s within his rights to do that, but it shows he is not a good person.
I’m sure this athlete knows there are some little kids out there who view him as a hero. It’s cruel to treat your fans with such indifference when you owe some portion of your success in life to their support.
It’s not so much that we think that Make a Wish is inflexible about the time, it’s more that I’m uncomfortable with the idea that their charity is so special that refusing it makes one an asshole. Selfish? OK. Jerky? Maybe. Asshole? That’s a really strong word in my book.
Sure, Make a Wish will make every reasonable effort to negotiate so that the Celeb is only giving up a few hours of his/her time rather than giving up a trip to Hawaii or a trip to build houses for the needy. But for many people, 3 hours less time hanging out with buddies on Thursday may in fact convert to 3 hours less available for other charitable efforts. And even if the Celeb isn’t giving up anything other than his freedom to do whatever suits him, I’m uncomfortable with the notion that he MUST do this activity or else he’s an asshole. What makes Make a Wish so freaking special?
Declining to attend a fundraising event is one thing, if that’s what you’re talking about. Saying no to an AIDS patient who wanted to meet the celebrity as their life goal because the celebrity is their personal hero is another, far more asshole-ish, move.
If a celebrity athlete can’t spare the time to come see the kid, they could at least offer to let the kid come to a game or (as I had commented earlier) send some token like an autographed photo. Everyone knows what Make a Wish is about and that it’s not some kind of scam. There are surely ways that they could show some concern for the kid if they really cared.
But you aren’t just asking. You’re (hypothetically) insulting them for saying no. That’s not asking, it’s demanding.
Furthermore, as others have pointed out, you’re demanding what can be a heavy emotional investment from the person. In some cases, it’d seem easier if the celebrity in question was more of a jerk – they’d be able to put in their two hours, mentally chalk it up as an investment in good PR, and promptly forget about the dying kid. Dealing with someone who’s dying carries a great emotional weight with it, and it seems a little odd to expect a stranger to more enthusiastically embrace this than people with a direct emotional connection to the kid.
What if spending time with this guy is the wish of 50 dying kids? Or a hundred? What if you get overwhelmed after a few and say, “no more”. Is he an asshole then?
When I first heard of this charity, it really pissed me off. Because of the overwhelming emotional weight it carries, and the very little real good it accomplishes, IMO. So I suppose I’m an asshole too. I want my charity to go to projects that make things better in the long run.