We Should Emphasize the Difference Between Critical-Illness Crowdfunding/Donation and Critical-Illness Mutual Aid

Critical-illness mutual aid is based on the correspondence of rights and obligations. It does not care whether participants are rich or poor; as long as they meet the rules, they can receive help, and participants may join out of compassion or out of regard for the return.

Critical-illness crowdfunding, by contrast, is more of a public-interest activity. It is based on people's sympathy and compassion, and participants seek no return.

Each has its strengths; both are great goods, and they apply to different situations.

The benefit of blurring the distinction is that critical-illness crowdfunding can drive traffic for mutual aid and insurance: many people who can't tell the difference naively become mutual aid members, giving the platforms a large user base. In reality, however, retention is not high.

The harm is also obvious: it makes people apply the moral standards of crowdfunding to mutual aid—"My family is this poor, why can't I get aid?", "I helped so many people on the platform, yet I got no help myself," "My condition doesn't meet your standards so I get no aid," "How can you refuse to help?", "Why is your review so strict?", "That person is so wealthy—why can he get mutual aid?"—and mutual aid is left struggling to move forward.

So the industry must not mislead in pursuit of rapid growth. It should clearly tell users the difference between mutual aid and critical-illness crowdfunding, so that users can make a correct choice. This is good for the industry in the long run.