Pratchett Donates $1m, Fans Try to Match It
It was announced last week that Terry Pratchett has pledged $1 million to Alzheimer’s Research Trust. While the cynic in me knows that this kind of awareness is only usually raised by of a popular celebrity because of their own personal suffering — and there are thousands of charities who don’t have someone famous behind them — it is clear that something needs to be done based on these facts alone:
It is a shock to find out that funding for Alzheimer’s research is just 3% of that to find cancer cures.
Mr Pratchett’s donation is in recognition of the urgent need to provide funding for research into the disease, which affects an estimated 700,000 people in the UK. For every person with Alzheimer’s, £11 is spent each year on UK research compared with £289 for each cancer patient, even though similar numbers of people are affected. £11 is spent each year on UK research compared with £289 for each cancer patient, even though similar numbers of people are affected.
A livejournal user started a post asking people to donate too:
Hearing [about Pratchett's donation], it occurred to me that if half a million of us all donated a pound to Alzheimer’s research, we could match his donation and make it an even million.
So whaddaya say, guys? It’s a pound. That’s about 2 bucks US dollars, give or take a couple of (US) pennies. You can spare that much. Go here and make your donation. Tell them it’s in honour of Terry Pratchett.
..which in turn has spawned the Match It For Pratchett campaign.
As a long time Pratchett reader and avid fan, with almost the entire collection to my name (including one signed 2007 diary although strictly speaking that belongs to Karl) I fully support this idea and will be putting in £10 in honour of Pratchett. Furthermore, any money I make from Site5 affiliate rewards in March (that’s $85 a sign up, folks) will also go straight to Alzheimer’s Research as soon as it’s passed the 60 day maturing period.
If you can’t donate because you’re too young or don’t have any spare change, you can do your bit by raising awareness for the Match It For Pratchett campaign. Visit their site for information and badges to link with 
Update: those with a digg account can help raise awareness by digging the Match It for Pratchett page.
![[feed]](/images/feed.gif)
One T shirt Jem sized on its way to me :o)
Response posted: March 18th, 2008 at 1:13 pmI’m a big Pratchett fan too and have already donated. Thanks for helping to spread the word Jem!
Response posted: March 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pmMatch It for Pratchett. I like the rhyming. I have theories about donating to charities (which is why I don’t) but that’s not for here. Good for you for donating, here’s hoping it makes a difference. Also, kind of pretentious of the livejournal user to assume that one can spare the $2?
Response posted: March 18th, 2008 at 3:32 pmWell Arwen, I see a difference between charity and research funding, I suppose I’m not alone. I know really poor people (living of the state, etc) and I know they would still spare $2 for something they really care for… poor people are usually way more generous then other people in my experience. Celebrities donating for causes like this really makes me think of this story where someone really rich gave like $10 000 to a charity but it was like 0.00001% of their fortune while someone gave like 10$, but it was all they had at that moment. Who is the most generous?
Response posted: March 18th, 2008 at 3:55 pmI don’t have it in me, I guess, to measure people’s generosity. Regardless of whether or not Pratchett is rich, I think his gesture was a good one. Now I only wish I actually did have money to donate. I try, but I won’t starve myself (and Eric and my cat!) to death.
Response posted: March 18th, 2008 at 5:55 pmDo you know of a way to donate via PayPal? Or, do you know how much of the t-shirt money will go to Alzheimer’s research?
Response posted: March 18th, 2008 at 5:56 pm@Sarah: I believe it’s the entire profit from the t-shirt, $10, but not 100% sure on that. I don’t know if there is a way to donate via paypal, sorry.
Response posted: March 18th, 2008 at 8:14 pmFurther proof that Terry Pratchett is awesome. This is where celebrity fortunes should be spent.
Response posted: March 18th, 2008 at 8:54 pmThere’s a “tip jar” button where you can go to donate a minimum of $2. I’m totally doing it. Regardless of any argument about celebrities or poor people, I know I can spare that much money so it’s no skin off my back.
Response posted: March 18th, 2008 at 10:35 pmArwen: I donate to charity if I’m given small change at a shop counter and there’s a charity box nearby, or if I know that the money is going to go towards something practical, like real help and support. I do like to do my bit, but I know some charities aren’t as helpful as others. I don’t think it’s pretentious at all to assume that each reader has £1/$2 to spare. I mean, that’s not even the price of a bus ticket here. Even a bottle of coke costs more than a pound these days. Seriously, all you need to do to be able to scrimp enough off your budget to save a pound to give to a worthy cause is not buy so many expensive snacks, do a chore for friends/parents for small change, craft and sell something small on eBay/Etsy, walk/cycle to work one morning, get off the bus a few stops early, park down a slightly less convenient side road instead of the £1/hr parking lot, turn off your heating/electrical appliances and wear woolly jumpers for the day, or pick up all the pennies you find on the floor. It’s not like they’re asking £1 a day or a week or a month or even a year, it’s just /one pound/, plain and simple. I have four of those lying on my desk right now not doing anything. What goes around comes around. Good intentions are rewarded. That’s why I do my bit. Yes, I’m donating now. Thanks for sharing. I don’t even like Pratchett but I think this is a good idea.
Response posted: March 18th, 2008 at 11:28 pmAre the majority of sufferers not old (as in past retirement age)? Not that I’m suggesting they aren’t important but it’s better that money is going to cancer which anybody at any age can get. While it’s unfortunate that these people have the disease, I think money is better going to the RSPCC or even cancer research, no?
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 2:08 am@Dave: wow…What exactly gives youth any more right to health care than the elderly? Doesn’t exactly make me look forward to being old. Actually, we should stop investing in physical diseases altogether, since people with them have higher chances of dying soon, just like the elderly. Two things, also: 1. the age of 65, which is no longered considered an “early” onset for the disease, isn’t really that “old” in a western society. 2. While it is true that Alzheimer is more common among the elderly people, there are people who are younger (as you actually hinted in your own reply). We cannot generalize our way of dealing with the disease just by looking at the fact that the majority of people with it are old. (OK, I’m getting tired, so I’m not sure the last sentence there made sense. Jem will probably call me drunk again.)
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 3:12 amSort of am boggling at the idea that this money should go to causes that already have far much more money going towards them because people of all ages get them. Maybe the majority of Alzheimer’s patients are older but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an affect on those who care for them, people who are younger. It’s not like they waste away in a bed, silent, and not interacting with anyone. Basically, it’s a horrific time for them and the people who care for them. There are even some so violent towards their caretakers that they have to be locked away. Not all but there’s often some level of anger because there comes a point where they don’t know anybody, not even their own children if they have any, they barely even know who they themselves are. It’s not a kind disease. Not that any physical disease is kind but it’s one that strips people of their dignity. At least with a physical disease like cancer you usually know who you are, you are usually surrounded by people you know love you, you don’t forget what you did five minutes ago. I’m not saying something like cancer is easy but why should a right to live a life of quality be only for something that affects people of all ages? Anyway, it was said that a great number of people donate to cancer causes. Who is to say that other diseases don’t deserve at least a fraction of that amount going towards them?
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 4:08 am@Julie: Lack of infinite money gives youth priority. They are the ones that need education. They are the ones that need to be protected. They are the ones that help (young and old) people in hospitals. Heck, it’s not even totally about old vs young. Cancer patients die horribly, are in pain most of the time and have their body battered by the radiation treatment. I’m not suggesting Alzheimer don’t suffer, but I don’t think they are as much as Cancer patients. Also, I suspect there there are not as many cases worldwide as there is for Cancer (i’m totally estimating based on the fact that most people in the world don’t live as long as they do in western countries). Don’t forget that any research done benefits the whole world too. The UK (with it’s minor population) is just the tip of the iceberg.
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 6:08 amAlso, before I forget I don’t *think* Alzheimers is fatal and I don’t think it accounts for around 13% of all deaths, not to mention the yearly death rate of over 7 million!
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 6:18 amI see both sides of the argument, and I’ve lost a family member to cancer. However, I’m a great fan of Pratchett..his writing has sometimes been the only way I’ve been able to lose myself and forget my immediate problems - and for that reason I’m behind the scheme. Just because it’s “non-fatal”, why should we be any less giving? In theory, less fatal suggests less severe, and possibly more workable than answers to cancer, surely? As to RSPCA etc, yes, I can see where you’re coming from..but society created the need for animal rescue stuff..if we were less wasteful, less selfish and less stupid as a society then the need for that wouldn’t be as bad. Most disabilities are non-fatal as well…however, without funding, we’d still be in the dark ages there..As an issue that affects me personally, I’m glad of the investment and effort people put in for “lesser” causes..:) I suspect if you were afflicted with Alzheimers, you’d be cursing a lack of research and investment as well..
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 9:06 am@Dave: Pratchett is 59 - I wouldn\’t consider that especially “old”. Julie and Gabrielle have already very eloquently expressed a lot of what I would have said had I been online earlier, but I will add that I think you need to do a bit of reading on Alzheimer\’s before you continue adding your $0.02 It is terminal - the entire body and its functions (bowel and bladder, mind and memory, etc - see http://tinyurl.com/2xr2lr) break down until a person eventually dies. It affects around 24 million people worldwide and while sure, that\’s not as many as cancer, Alzheimer\’s can last a ridiculous amount of time causing massive suffering to the “diseased” patient and a burden to those giving care. I have also lost family to cancer, and while I would never undermine the work that goes in to caring for and treating cancer patients it is hardly fair that - “even though similar numbers of people are affected” - there is such a huge difference in the amount of money going towards research. Further to all of this, your logic that cancer deserves more money because it affects young as well as old is flawed, because cancers affecting children are a very small minority.
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 9:14 amDave, before you start trying to argue that Alzheimers research doesn’t deserve the money, I’d suggest you research it a bit more. First off, Alzheimers patients live about 7 years after diagnosis if pneumonia (risk increased by Alzheimers) doesn’t get them first - it IS FATAL. Secondly, if you look at the statistics again: [quote]For every person with Alzheimer’s, £11 is spent each year on UK research compared with £289 for each cancer patient[/quote] That doesn’t mean to say ‘we should spend the same amount on Alzheimers as on Cancer research’ because obviously there are more sufferers of cancer, but [b]per patient[/b] there is [i]significantly less money going towards helping patients with Alzheimers[/i]. To top that off, some cancer patients survive due to the research they’ve managed to perform, but everyone with Alzheimers will eventually die from it. There are no treatments available. Thirdly, not everyone who gets Alzheimers is past retirement age. Younger people can get it too (though it is rare), but cancer in younger patients is also rare. Who cares that the younger people provide us with care and support, at the end of the day it’s not about saving who can help us, it’s helping people through the hard times. No matter who gets cancer or Alzheimers, it’s likely in both cases that it will be fatal to them. There is no stopping it. There is no ’saving’, ‘curing’ or ‘protecting’ people. Research can develop ways of helping patients with terminal illness to live the time they have left better with new drugs and therapies. Like I said earlier, just look at what cancer research has done for cancer patients. They are living longer and better lives or even being cured entirely! Imagine if they could do the same for Alzheimers. Fourthly, who would you rather be: someone dying from cancer who is fully aware of the world around them, interacts with their friends and family and has all the love in the world by their side but is in a lot of physical pain. Or someone who slowly goes insane to the point where they don’t know anyone, and lives their last few years paralysed and alone, their body shutting down right in front of their eyes. Quite frankly, I would rather die from cancer and not be alone, than die a slightly less painful but more lonely way. Alzheimers patients need all the support they can get. I know multiple people who have died from cancer (my great aunt died from breast cancer recently, aged around 60), but I also know people who suffer(ed) from Alzheimers. I worked as a volunteer at a Cancer Research UK store one summer, and I donate to various other charities now because I don’t have the time to do volunteer work. I would not ever say that some charities that research common terminal diseases are more deserving than others. That’s ignorance.
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am@Jem: My argument was never that there are more or few children with cancer but there are many children that are in dire need of help and I’m more comfortable *trying* to help the abused/homeless/poor/ill/etc child than an old ill person. Sure, it’s sad when anybody suffers but when I hear about the 11 year old forced into prostitution or the kid who committed suicide I can’t even think about Alzheimers. It’s heart breaking. It’s enough to make a person cry just hearing about it. I *feel* that the kids need more protection and more help than old people. I did stress the work “think” about it being fatal - coz I don’t know enough about it. I do know that how much money spent on these things is all about numbers. How many worldwide, how many in the country, how many will die from it per year etc. It’s just the old “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” logic. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong just that…well it’s a good reason to spend more on cancer. Folks, I’m not trying to undermine the seriousness of the disease all I’m trying to say is that there is sound logic (number, people!) behind the spending. @Karl - RSPCC not RSPCA! Animals can look after themselves, they aren’t as useless as us
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 12:09 pmoops. Heh. As to children, yes, it’s sad. Where I work, we have a lot of kids that have what I would call “poor” home lives, sometimes quite shocking..and I’m firmly of the opinion that people should have restrictions placed on having kids - need to prove ability, income, responsibility, and general worthiness to procreate before being allowed. An exam to have kids, not just the ability to pass the practical. Maybe it seems harsh, but after 8 years and countless thousands of kiddies through the doors, most with a story, lots with problems, it’s my view of what needs doing. It’s put me off having kids a little..
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 12:38 pmSo £11 per person for Alzheimers and £289 per person for Cancer is logical, is it? That’s 1/26th the amount of money per person. Alzheimers research undoubtedly needs more help. Why should we keep diverting our funds away from other charities, to cancer research when there’s other charities out there that need our help. You can give to the child protection charities, you can give to the animal shelters, you can give to cancer research but why on God’s earth would you ever put Alzheimers research lower than anything else when they’re already practically bottom of the list for available funds just because it mostly affects old people and they don’t deserve the treatment as much as young people do. That’s bullshit. Just wait until someone you love gets Alzheimers and you’ll see how f’ing heartbreaking it can be. Sorry for swearing, Jem. But this Dave guy is pissing me off.
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pmSwear all you like.
I don’t think this is going to go anywhere though - nobody can force Dave to want to donate or to agree with funding Alzheimer’s research, and I’ve donated a tenner which is enough to cover 10 people who can’t/won’t donate anyway.
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 1:33 pmJust a little thing I’d like to add (not two cents, because I’m keeping my cents for charities :P): there’s nothing that keeps anyone from donating to BOTH. I’m sure if people were to be more careful where they put money (*glares at multibillionaires), we would be able to fund both cancer and Alzheimer research.
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 2:16 pm@Dave your type of thinking, that the elderly don’t need as much care as the young do, is the reason why many care homes treat their elderly patients badly. In the UK the number of the old people outwigh the number of young people. The fact that you are saying one disease deserves more research and care than the other is so sad. As dwarfism is rare maybe we should stop that too. I know let’s go cease treatment for all diseases that don’t measure up to the grand scale of cancer. If we don’t take care of our elderly, who will take care of us when we reach that age? Like if we become incompetent and suffer so much pain? Sorry this just got me a bit angry.
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 4:57 pmSorry Jem I didn’t notice my spelling mistakes, oh drats.:(
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 4:57 pmI remember Terry came to Victoria about 4, 5? years ago. And i went to hear him talk.. and he was so enchanting. it was to this day, the best public reading i’ve ever been too. and afterwards, he stayed till every single person had got his autograph…. and i made some silly comment and he teased me back. and it was a great moment. and now when i think about how his mind is slowly going to deteriorate… and he won’t be able to give talks like that anymore, i’m struck w/ so much sadness. it’s definately worth me giving up a meal or a coffee for.
Response posted: March 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pmJust a thought: you’ve stated before that you feel it’s scummy for a celebrity to invest in charities that support their own illness/suffering, but I’ve never really understood that. Would you rather that they piss and moan and ask for handouts?
Response posted: March 20th, 2008 at 9:47 amI’ve never said it’s “scummy”, Jordie. I’ve said that I believe celebrities can be incredibly selfish, donating only to charities and causes that will help them rather than making regular donations to a multitude of good causes irrelevant of whether they affect them personally. Cynicism aside, I’d rather people helped a good cause because they are affected by it than do nothing at all.
Response posted: March 20th, 2008 at 9:52 amWell, I don’t think it’s scummy or selfish.. I think it is a natural response, but to each their own.
Response posted: March 20th, 2008 at 11:25 amIt would be a natural response for most people, but to be so rich and not donate anything to charity before that, seems odd to me. If I were rich, I would donate most of my fortune to charities and allow myself to live on maybe £100k a year. I don’t know what on earth I’d spend it on otherwise, such money isn’t needed by a single person. Anyone fancy assassinating Heather Mills?
Response posted: March 20th, 2008 at 11:56 amIn fact, that sounded a bit weird of me because no I wouldn’t donate most of my fortune to charities I would use the money to go out there and be with and help people who needed it. I prefer to do something practical than just blindly give the money away with little idea what it’ll actually be used for. You know that show - The Secret Millionaire - I’d be like that. Only, less of a publicity stunt.
Response posted: March 20th, 2008 at 11:58 amThank you for posting about this, Jem. My grandmother had Alzheimer’s and it was one of the worst experiences of my life seeing her slowly deteriorate. I’m totally going to donate and add a badge to my site…
Response posted: March 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pmkudos on this post. i worked with people with alzheimer’s for about 3 years. if only more people understood the true cruelness of this disease more would be done about it. i don’t care shit for pratchett but whatevs, awareness is awareness.
Response posted: March 21st, 2008 at 4:04 am