As seems then to be the common theme, I also tend to go with causes that feel in some way close to my heart...(apart from when in Waitrose, of course...sorry tzb :laugh: )
The charity that I always come back to is the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, because my uncle suffered from CF (and was indirectly supported by the Trust, as is pretty much anyone in the UK who suffers from it). I, too, like to look at local things, on the assumption that everyone else is busy supporting more well-known causes...
But I do question my own approach sometimes (hence this thread :laugh: ) - for instance - as a general rule, I don't ever give to Cancer charities (unless through sponsorship etc). I tend to think of them as getting plenty of attention from everyone else. But, although no-one really close to me has suffered from or died of cancer, it's pretty inevitable that at some point someone will, or quite possibly I will.
I sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that it's 'unfair' that the charity giants like that get such a huge share of the attention in the sector, but when it's for something that kills such a disproportionately huge amount of people, it's probably not unfair at all...?
So, a lot of us take the 'close to my heart' approach, but is there an argument for being more utilitarian about things?
Although, I suppose that, if everyone supports the medical causes that have affected someone close to them, things ought to work more or less proportionally (statistically) 'correct'... I think?? :dry:
B.Div | OCP
