Appealing to the crowd: ethical justifications in Canadian medical crowdfunding campaigns

Area of Science:

• Health Economics
• Sociology of Health and Illness
• Digital Health Humanities

Background:

• Medical crowdfunding is a rapidly expanding area of healthcare funding, marked by growth in campaign numbers, raised funds, and public attention.
• Limited academic understanding exists regarding the specific persuasive strategies employed by medical crowdfunding campaigners.
• Existing knowledge is largely based on anecdotal evidence from media reports on individual campaigns.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze the justification strategies used in Canadian medical crowdfunding campaigns.
• To identify common themes in how campaigners appeal for financial support for health needs.
• To explore the ethical dimensions of these appeals within the context of academic literature.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of 80 medical crowdfunding campaigns specifically for Canadian recipients.
• Qualitative examination of the language and appeals used by campaigners to solicit donations.
• Thematic analysis to categorize the types of justifications presented to potential donors.

Main Results:

• Campaign justifications predominantly fall into three core themes: personal connections, depth of need, and the principle of giving back to the community.
• These themes represent distinct approaches to framing health needs and donor obligations.
• The findings provide empirical data on the communication strategies in medical crowdfunding.

Conclusions:

• The identified themes offer insights into how individuals navigate financial barriers to healthcare through public appeals.
• These justifications can be interpreted through ethical frameworks concerning charitable giving and healthcare access.
• Further assessment is needed to evaluate the ethical implications of these persuasive strategies in light of existing concerns about medical crowdfunding.