Question

Over the years, the Red Cross has been guided in its use of donations by honoring donor intent. This policy helped the organization deal with a major ethical challenge after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Red Cross received more than $1 billion in donations and initially diverted some money to ancillary operations, such as creating a strategic blood reserve. After donors objected, however, the organization reversed its decision and – honoring donor intent – used the contributions to directly benefit people affected by the tragedy. Should the American Red Cross have reversed its initial decision to divert some of the money donated for September 11 relief efforts to pressing but ancillary operations? Support your chosen position.

Answer 1

Yes

Step-by-step explanation:

The Red Cross society is an organization that have collected money from their donors. Ethically, it is a right thing to honour the intent of donors. Donors make donations with an opinion that the money is utilized for the specific purpose and carries lot of emotions behind the donation. So, for any reason, if the purpose is changed, it may not be accepted by the donors. Of course, it may be more worthwhile to divert the money for other reasons or purposes like creating a strategic blood reserve (for ancillary operation) and the decision may help many people in future. But the society primary responsibility is to make use of the donors' money as per the intensions of the donors only. the society may use the money for other purposes after convincing the donors. So, the Red Cross initially have faced the opposition from the donors and reversed its decision and after that, it has taken a decision that is accepted by the donors, its completely a justifiable one.

Answer 2

Red Cross took the right decision by reversing the original decision of diverting the donations. If it had diverted the donations donor will loose trust in the organisation and will not come forward to help. When it maintains a policy of honoring donor intent people will trust it to stand by it and they donated for the victims of the terrorist attack and the donations must be spent on it only. Then the trust of the donors will not fall and if the organisation wants donations for other ancillary operation sit can genuinely ask for donations and there are many people who would be willing to help. This gives both trust and respect and also the cause is served. Hence the decision to reverse the original one is correct and a good move.