As we have often discussed here at the JDCA, the term “cure” is widely used by the media, internet, and diabetes organizations without a clear definition. As fundraising season gears up, many local newspapers are writing articles to promote fundraising events.
Many of these articles are general, and this indirectly points to the problem in cure fundraising – the generality of it. While some of the articles do a great job describing the difference between type 1 and type 2, many use the term “cure” without any definition or description. Similarly, the word “cure” is also often used in big bold letters during fundraisers, but a majority of money raised does not go toward projects with a defined cure outcome.
What do we need to do? The JDCA believes that we need to focus on a defined cure outcome, and we have called our definition a Practical Cure. Progress will be slow and unfocused unless we define what we are searching for and set benchmarks for achieving it. Making strong predictions in the medical field is undoubtedly complex, especially when dealing with a disease like type 1 diabetes, but at the same time, we should always be wary of generalized reports, and generalized fundraisers that promise something without a set idea of how to achieve it.
This, of course, is not to say that all fundraisers and gala events are directionless – far from it. But we must always be alert and ask ourselves if what we are donating and raising money for has the potential to make a real difference.
It is up to us to make our intentions heard and ensure that our contributions are used for projects working toward a Practical Cure.
– Stoyan
