Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
gogreatergood1
0
0

I feel like things are being looked at here in a bit of a bad faith manner. I apologize if I am wrong.

  1. Yes "in it to end it" is an aspirational phrase, and limited to their "vision" page. It's not at the forefront of any details of what they are actually doing on the ground.

    I imagine the Fistula Foundation team is indeed motivated to see this problem eliminated from the planet totally. 

    Perhaps they will transform more to the prevention side as they finish their mission of tackling the extremely low-hanging fruit of curing 88% of the 1 million women who have these 2 conditions of untreated obstetric fistula and untreated perineal tears. That is the obvious thing to do for now and will eliminate 88% of the issue of untreated birth trauma.

    People in EA think that we will all be immortal and merge with machines. And many other crazy things. But perhaps we will never ever be able to stop all women from being permanently incontinent due to birth trauma. To me this seems more than plausible.

     
  2. They are indeed building up local obstetric health infrastructure, in some manner or another. I did not say they are currently providing care prior to or during births as you seemed to think I said. Obstetrics is anything to do with the female reproductive organs. 

    I merely speculated that as FF amplifies and supports the efforts of already amazing OB/GYNs around the low-income world, and continuing to build up their outreach programs that brings in women from all over the place in to be connected with OB/GYNs, that this could at some point spill over more into the prevention side of things. Maybe I'm wrong about that. That's why I said I wasn't sure of it. But it is not far-fetched. 

    Greatly increasing the number of women who are connected with OB/GYN doctors... knowing where they are located and what they can do, etc, you think is not building up obstetric health infrastructure? This is the phrasing that I'm personally using but the details here are correct. Many of these 100,000 women they have funded surgeries for didn't even know their condition was curable beforehand. [edit to include this link: https://fistulafoundation.org/what-we-do/how-we-work/]
Reply
See in context
by gogreatergood
2 min read 13

18

Global health & developmentEffective givingCharity evaluationNeglected tropical diseasesOpinion
Frontpage

EA relevance:

  • The Life You Can Save recommends Fistula Foundation.

     
  • GiveWell said about them most recently (in 2021), "We think that Fistula Foundation may be in the range of cost-effectiveness of our current top charities."
     
  • Happier Lives Institute has "fistula repair surgery" on their upcoming research agenda to see if Fistula Foundation may be a top charity for them. 

My thoughts:

I believe Fistula Foundation is underrated in the EA world for a number of reasons: 
 

  1. They seek to permanently end a horrific condition for all women on earth, in our lifetimes. 

    (Whereas many other EA charities do not have such a bold and plausible plan to permanently end the problems they work on... eg, Malaria Consortium).

    PS... should "permanence" even be added to the EA framework alongside tractability, scale, and neglectedness?

     
  2. They are bottom-up oriented... in that they build up already existing hospitals, surgeons, and outreach programs... in manners that are collaborative and long-lasting. 

    (Not that top-down dependency... eg, Malaria Consortium... is inherently bad... but it's always ideal to instead be collaboratively building up such that communities can take care of themselves). 

     
  3. There is something to be appreciated about a cost-effective charity which specifically looks after issues common to women in low income countries, especially as there are few EA charities doing this... as of course, there are a number of horrific contexts in low-income countries that apply more often to women, or even exclusively to women (like the birth trauma that Fistula Foundation cures). This is a conversation worth having, and an action worth taking. 

     
  4. As there are many ways in which the wider world cares about women (eg, the popularity of International Women's Day), but does not always have something obvious and effective to do about it... I believe Fistula Foundation can be utilized to get non-typical EAs donating to a highly effective charity. Fistula Foundation's work is clear-cut and pulls at the heart strings. 

    (Whereas many other EA charities have very low possibilities of reaching outside of the exclusive EA club... eg, Malaria Consortium... "We give chemo drugs to kids to prevent some of them from later contracting malaria." -- this is not an easy sell... for starters, most people don't even know the details of malaria... whereas most everyone knows that women's insides can sometimes get ripped apart in labor but that this can be cured.)

18

2
0

Reactions

2
0
Comments13


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Davidmanheim5
1
0

Permanence should already be under cost effectiveness over time, but I agree it's not obvious where it goes in the simplified ITN framework. if we added it, I'd suggest 'persistence' as the more general framing for how long the fix lasts. And fistulas won't ever get fixed permanently globally the way eliminating diseases globally can permanently fix an entire problem, so I'd say it's fairly persistent, but not fully permanent.

Reply
Julia_Wise🔸*6
3
0

Agree, I find their claim of "permanence" strange. It's like claiming to permanently eliminate broken arms. We could reduce the causes of fistulas and broken arms, and we could ensure that everyone gets appropriate medical care to treat fistulas and broken arms, but the actual injuries will continue to happen and continue to need treatment. (And afaict Fistula Foundation isn't working on prevention, only treatment. Which is understandable, as underlying causes are less straightforward to work on.)

Whereas a contagious disease like malaria could in theory be actually eliminated.

But in general I'm glad to see attention on quality of life type interventions!

Reply
gogreatergood1
0
0

It would be permanent elimination of *untreated* obstetric fistula & perineal tears (both of which Fistula Foundation treats). Not the elimination of obstetric fistula / perineal tears themselves.

I apologize if I was a little sloppy with my wording on that.

Reply
Julia_Wise🔸4
2
0

Their own language is a little vague - the slogan "in it to end it" is used a lot, but it's unclear what exactly is being ended. "end the suffering caused by fistula" and "end the suffering caused by childbirth injuries" are used in some places. Certainly a world where everyone gets prompt treatment for such injuries is much better where they don't!

But I find their framing about ending fistulas strange, given that there are known risk factors (maternal malnutrition leading to small stature, very young maternal age, lack of obstetric care, infibulation) and they're not working on any of those. That's probably a good decision if fistulas are more cost-effective to treat than to prevent, but I find their marketing choice kind of misleading.

Reply
gogreatergood1
0
0

As a side note, I do also see potential for their current system to additionally cascade into more of the prevention side. I'm not sure of this. But, at least, they are definitely building up local obstetric health infrastructure around the world in long-lasting manners.

Reply
Julia_Wise🔸*8
0
0

Sorry, I realize this is in the weeds, but I don't see where they say they're building up obstetric health infrastructure at all. They work with surgical teams to facilitate more reparative surgeries, but it's not clear to me that those surgeons are providing any care before or during births. Again, repairs rather than prevention may just be the most cost-effective way to make immediate progress on this problem — I don't mean that it's not a good strategy! 

I was looking at the Vision page which describes "in it to end it" several times as their vision (but vision statements are meant to be aspirational rather than realistic). An 88% cure rate on 100,000 surgeries is still 22,000 [edit, should be 12,000] uncured patients even after treatment, so I do think there's a gap between the vision and what one should expect in a practical sense.

Reply
gogreatergood3
0
0
1

Sorry to write a 3rd comment in response to your latest one. Hope I'm not throwing you off, I'd be curious and enjoy hearing any additonal thoughts from you even if I disagree with them.

Just wanted to point out this fantastic Emmy-award winning documentary that profiles a few women who outreach teams managed to find and connect with a hospital that Fistula Foundation funded in Ethiopia.

One of the women profiled, the surgery didn't work (so she would be in the 12%), but they did end up finding a less ideal workaround for her anyway as they continued to care for her.

Reply
gogreatergood1
0
0

+ btw your number should be 12,000 on the 88% cure rate, not 22,000. 

+ also btw this was a good point about their methods not being perfect even if they DO reach everyone, that was a good rebuttal to what I had initially said! thank you for bringing it up and allowing me to respond further in the other comment I just posted.

+ my main point in bringing this point of "permanence" or "persistence" up... was more about what's being aimed at in a broad sense.

FF is acting toward an end (or to be fair a near-end) to untreated birth trauma. whereas other orgs eg Malaria Consortium are acting toward an indefinite dependence on foreign help and pharmaceutical companies for something that does not end (nor near-end) the problem as much as keep it more under control.

Reply
Julia_Wise🔸5
0
0

>btw your number should be 12,000 on the 88% cure rate, not 22,000.
Thanks, you're right!

Reply
gogreatergood13
0
0
1

thank you Julia for engaging with me. most people don't give me much when I occasionally post here. you have helped me to think about different valid points and refine my own thoughts and how I word things. appreciate you !!

Reply
gogreatergood1
0
0

I feel like things are being looked at here in a bit of a bad faith manner. I apologize if I am wrong.

  1. Yes "in it to end it" is an aspirational phrase, and limited to their "vision" page. It's not at the forefront of any details of what they are actually doing on the ground.

    I imagine the Fistula Foundation team is indeed motivated to see this problem eliminated from the planet totally. 

    Perhaps they will transform more to the prevention side as they finish their mission of tackling the extremely low-hanging fruit of curing 88% of the 1 million women who have these 2 conditions of untreated obstetric fistula and untreated perineal tears. That is the obvious thing to do for now and will eliminate 88% of the issue of untreated birth trauma.

    People in EA think that we will all be immortal and merge with machines. And many other crazy things. But perhaps we will never ever be able to stop all women from being permanently incontinent due to birth trauma. To me this seems more than plausible.

     
  2. They are indeed building up local obstetric health infrastructure, in some manner or another. I did not say they are currently providing care prior to or during births as you seemed to think I said. Obstetrics is anything to do with the female reproductive organs. 

    I merely speculated that as FF amplifies and supports the efforts of already amazing OB/GYNs around the low-income world, and continuing to build up their outreach programs that brings in women from all over the place in to be connected with OB/GYNs, that this could at some point spill over more into the prevention side of things. Maybe I'm wrong about that. That's why I said I wasn't sure of it. But it is not far-fetched. 

    Greatly increasing the number of women who are connected with OB/GYN doctors... knowing where they are located and what they can do, etc, you think is not building up obstetric health infrastructure? This is the phrasing that I'm personally using but the details here are correct. Many of these 100,000 women they have funded surgeries for didn't even know their condition was curable beforehand. [edit to include this link: https://fistulafoundation.org/what-we-do/how-we-work/]
Reply
gogreatergood1
0
0

Perhaps it's my own "marketing" here that is bad, and my own wording that is sloppy in this post. 

Fistula Foundation doesn't use this phrase "a lot" and looking around their site, starting with their homepage (where they don't use this phrase), it's not at all vague what they are ending. They are ending this condition being a permanent and horrifying disability for one million women around the world. And moving it to be the easily and quickly cured condition that it is. (And already they have funded over 100,000 surgeries with an 88% cure rate, so on this front they do have some potential to actually end this condition as a disability.)

Reply
gogreatergood2
0
0

Thank you for your thoughtful comment David !

The "permanence" idea is definitely something I have not thought too carefully on, which is why it's just one of the little side points in this piece. -- so I appreciate your thoughts to help me think about it more carefully.

I agree that persistence is another good word for this; and also that this could be a sub-topic under cost effectiveness. Great points.

I think I slightly disagree that fixing the fistula problem is different from eliminating diseases. But in any case I do agree with your overall point on that, that persistence is probably a better word to use!

Thank you again.

Reply
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Effective giving
133
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
19
GiveWell is hiring a Talent Acquisition Specialist
GiveWell
· · 1m read
0
0
113
USAID Aid Freeze - Bridge Fund established - Donate now for immediate relief
James&Joe
· · 1m read
15
15
View more