Hi folks. I think it's great that the neighbour kids were motivated to do something to help. But I don't entirely see the rationale for trying to organize a broader fundraising campaign.

After all, we all have seriously ill infants in our own towns and cities... why not support them and their families, rather than focusing on one baby in Kansas who was in the newspaper?

And the article didn't say that Haydn's family doesn't have health insurance (and I think we can assume the article WOULD say that if it were the case). I realize that illness or disability usually involves some expenses or lost wages that aren't covered by insurance. Nonetheless, to me it would make more sense to direct your money and efforts to families/infants without health insurance. For example, Toronto has a "street clinic" that serves homeless pregnant women or young mothers without asking for their health cards or other ID ... and no doubt there are similar worthy causes in most cities. Or on a global scale, sending that loose change to MSF would make a bigger difference to babies at risk than it would probably make to Haydn's family.

I hope I haven't offended you, Sorcha - but there are millions of good causes that would benefit from donations, and it's worthwhile to evaluate where the money would be the most helpful.

Marion