Angel Flight gets some good local press

"Peter R." wrote:
In flying Angel Flights, I'm doing what I enjoy
most; the sacrifice is minimal.

Who ever wrote that one had to be miserable to be humanitarian?

That seemed to be your point. You were the one going on about the
sacrifices you make for Angel Flight. Do they make you miserable?

Drescher minimized his stature as a humanitarian for being an Angel
Flight pilot, with which I agree. I don't think I'm making any
sacrifices; it's hard for me to pat myself on the back for doing
something that is so much fun.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:

That seemed to be your point.

No, it wasn't my point.

You were the one going on about the
sacrifices you make for Angel Flight. Do they make you miserable?

I never used the term sacrifice, as it was too strong a word for this
context. You were the one who used it first.

Drescher minimized his stature as a humanitarian for being an Angel
Flight pilot, with which I agree. I don't think I'm making any
sacrifices; it's hard for me to pat myself on the back for doing
something that is so much fun.

If my post were interpreted by you as a pat on my back, my apologies for my
poor attempt at communication. Tough medium here.

My interpretation of his post was that flying for AF is not really a
humanitarian act because we as their pilots *merely* do it as an excuse to
fly and nothing else. My point was that I disagreed with this
interpretation.


--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
My interpretation of his post was that flying for AF is not really a
humanitarian act because we as their pilots *merely* do it as an excuse to
fly and nothing else.

Nope, not 'merely'. Just *largely*. The same amount of effort--and
especially money--directed elsewhere could do far more good. None of which
is to criticize Angel Flight, though; I continue to volunteer for them, and
encourage others to do the same.

--Gary

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:57:17 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
My interpretation of his post was that flying for AF is not really a
humanitarian act because we as their pilots *merely* do it as an excuse to
fly and nothing else.

Nope, not 'merely'. Just *largely*. The same amount of effort--and
especially money--directed elsewhere could do far more good. None of which
is to criticize Angel Flight, though; I continue to volunteer for them, and
encourage others to do the same.

I disagree. Given the time and money outlayed, I don't understand
what additional 'good' could be done for these patients AF flights
enable the treatment that gives them a chance to live.

Example: I have flown AF cancer patients to/from Mayo (3 hr flight).
This would have been a 10 hr drive, or a close to 10 hr flight with
connections. Many of the patients are close to bankrupcy because of
their medical conditions.

How else would you propose I redirect ~6hrs of time and ~$400 of
finances to help them?

-Nathan

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
I disagree. Given the time and money outlayed, I don't understand
what additional 'good' could be done for these patients AF flights
enable the treatment that gives them a chance to live.

Example: I have flown AF cancer patients to/from Mayo (3 hr flight).
This would have been a 10 hr drive, or a close to 10 hr flight with
connections. Many of the patients are close to bankrupcy because of
their medical conditions.

How else would you propose I redirect ~6hrs of time and ~$400 of
finances to help them?

It's not that the same resources could necessarily be put to better use for
the *same beneficiaries* (although if they're close to bankruptcy, they
might actually benefit more if we stayed at home and just donated to them
what the cost of the flight would have been--including all expenses, plus
the value of our time). Rather, my point is that for the cost of a single
Angel Flight, we could e.g. buy antibiotics for children who would otherwise
die of easily preventable diseases, saving many lives.

Again, Angel Flights do accomplish a great deal of good, and it's not
necessarily unreasonable for us to act from a combination of altruistic and
selfish motivations. I just want to maintain a realistic perspective about
what that combination is.

--Gary

Gary wrote:

Nope, not 'merely'. Just *largely*. The same amount of effort--
and especially money--directed elsewhere could do far more good.

I disagree, but honestly I have never sat down and performed a
cost-benefit analysis of AF versus the many other charities out there.


To me flying for AF seems like it has a greater, direct impact on those
who utilize the service.

--
Peter R.

"Peter R." wrote in message
oups.com...
Gary wrote:

Nope, not 'merely'. Just *largely*. The same amount of effort--
and especially money--directed elsewhere could do far more good.

I disagree, but honestly I have never sat down and performed a
cost-benefit analysis of AF versus the many other charities out there.

It's a matter of relative benefit, which I think Gary already pointed out
reasonably well.

In developed nations, we spend an awful lot of resources (read, money)
keeping just one person alive (and in many cases, they even want to be kept
alive ), when those resources could be applied elsewhere to keep
thousands, tens of thousands, or more alive.

This sort of analysis can be applied to a variety of things we do as
developed nations; it's not unique to Angel Flight. But it definitely
applies to Angel Flight (and similar charity work).

I'm not passing judgment (nor does it appear that Gary is). But like Gary,
I agree that it's helpful to at least keep things in perspective.

Pete