Philosophical discussion of the disbursement of money following a tragedy.

Short story is, last winter a semi ran a stop sign, and a bus full of hockey players ran into it.  Killed about half, seriously injured about a quarter, the other quarter will have nightmares for the rest of their lives.  Someone started a Gofundme page, and between that and other fundraising, there was somewhere on the high side of $20,000,000 raised.

The main payments have been announced, with $475,000 going to each family who had someone die, and $425,000 going to families of survivors, after a fairly long process with a volunteer council and legal consultation making the decisions.

This seems backwards to me.  While I totally understand the pain of losing a loved one, money isn't going to do anybody much good.  However, a group of late teens in wheelchairs will need help for the rest of their lives.  I sometimes feel I have a bit of a callous attitude towards death, but being 58 and having lost my father, an uncle and three grandparents before I was 13 gives me the knowledge that nobody gets out alive...

My plan:  Here is a nice memorial to your lost son.  Heres a few bucks to get you over the worst.  Now, lets create some programs to help with the rehab of those who still have a future.

Am I wrong?

I like the way you think.

Pete

The problem here is that the people that lost someone think that somehow money will help. In the case the of a bread winner I can see it. You are not wrong you are being logical and actually probably doing the most good with the money available but try telling that to the family’s of the dead. They will not see it that way. They want a piece of some one or something thinking it will make the pain less. It will not. In fact depending on what they do with there new found money it can make things worse. They will have $425,000 reminders of the pain. 

I'm looking at this from a different perspective than most. My young son died as a result of someone else's negligence. Naturally lawyers all wanted to talk to me. 

I had 7-figure carrots dangled before my wife and I. We didn't want the money. The money wouldn't bring him back, ease the pain, or right the wrong. 

I wanted $1 a year on his birthday until he was 18. Not to torture them, but to remind them that sometimes our mistakes have long-term consequences. 

Sorry, I went off on a tangent. I agree with you. Most Folks do. Unfortunately, most folks can't walk away from an experience like that with nothing but a "I'm really sorry".  They want something, and that something can only be money. 

I had a son born with issues, partially due to incompetence. We were strongly recommended to sue. We chose not to because having more money was not going to fix anything. Still comfortable with that choice 19 years later. 

From my perspective, which is unfortunately now more relevant than most, I see both points of view.

The money will never bring her back. But with the money, my wife wouldn’t have to go back to work (at the place where our daughter was born). She doesn’t have to, but she will have to find a job within a year. The money would take that strain away.

Second, there is a difference in suing WalMart and suing Random Person, and people who gave freely. WalMart won’t notice. Random Persons life would be ruined, and it already is anyways. In this situation, people gave freely. If we had been given the money, we would probably have my wife take a year off, and donate the rest to Ronald McDonald House or the hospital where my daughter passed. 

Edit: there was no malpractice in our case. In hindsight there were things that m y have saved her life, but it was a tightrope walk the entire time. Those actions may have resulted in her passing anyways. 

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

I too agree with you. 

bearmtnmartin said:

I had a son born with issues, partially due to incompetence. We were strongly recommended to sue. We chose not to because having more money was not going to fix anything. Still comfortable with that choice 19 years later. 

22 years later for us.

Y'alls ability to acknowledge the essentials of the each specific situation and act accordingly with minimal repercussions(mental/physical) is truly comforting......thanks     

Tough one for sure.  But especially with much smaller families today a loss can suck the entire life force out of a family even extended members like cousins.  The survivors are a living reminder and as such can hopefully continue to rely as they should on our most devout sympathy and charity when the going gets tough periodically for the decades ahead.  For those that are gone?  Well who here goes to a cemetery on the regular?  After a year or two who goes to see the parents?  The disbursement seems more than fair. 

I don’t think there was any question about fairness of what was done. it was the objective assessment of the situation and that using the money to help the living who were hurt and permanently disabled would potentially do more good than giving a large portion of the money to the family’s of the deceased.  It is a really tough situation. 

the death of a child especially in cases where the media is involved to my circumspect knowledge it seems like a divorce is something that happens often. That might come from watching too many sensational t.v. documentaries but it's not something I'd dispel too easily.  Intact families are the most important thing initially at least I'd proffer. Stories of physical rehabilitation are something I see often. Books get written by survivors of tragedy.  I've got a few on my Amazon wishlist.  They're incredibly inspiring.  The rehabilitation of loss?  I don't see that so much outside of orthodox religious circles. 

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

You make an excellent logical case, however the disbursement of money is being handled emotionally...

Another side of this are the victims relatives that feel the need to make it their life mission to prevent more deaths in a similar manner. And for them, the money can be used well for a better future for others.