I'm all in favor of the so-called young and naive taking on causes that have previously been ignored.  I have some "interns" working with me now and they have energy and ideas and come from completely different backgrounds than my own - one from marketing and one is a lawyer.  I love the cross professional viewpoints.  

Having once been a young and naive volunteer in Peace Corps, I watched the evolution of the varied form of volunteerism.  Some of the most enthusiastic became the most cynical when they were saving the world and the world didn't seem to acknowledge or appreciate that they were saving it.  Some of the more lukewarm went on to full careers in international development.  And some of the most shaky volunteers, that joined on a whim to have some fun, turned out to be some of the best.  

What is not good is the occasional "rogue" volunteer that turns a deaf ear to experience.  I think of the case of the donations of milk shipped to Africa and the fact that there were quite a few posts where those of us with experience were routinely chastised for trying to impede the process of "saving the world".  In this case, the person involved was DISEMPOWERING the local population by not focusing on developing local milk banks.  When you divert attention and money from more appropriate solutions, there is an OPPORTUNITY COST involved.  The energy and money spent shipping milk from the US to Africa is astronomically greater than doing the same thing in place.  Furthermore, in this case, most of the milk wasn't going to Africa anyway.  So, it was somewhat deceptive for the donors.

Now, in terms of an online movement.  One of the issues I have has nothing to do with the age of the person disseminating information.  It has to do with the quality of the information being sent.  I often get so-called research papers sent to me that are nothing of the sort.  I'm plowing through the AAP statement on earlier introduction to solids and even though this appears to be "scientific" there is one section that appears to be a case of confirmation bias of the worst form.  So, regardless of the cause, I see no problem with a online movement that seeks out the experts to help them formulate and avoid some pitfalls. For instance, litigation of the sort that Kathy Lilleskov mentioned.  

I have never seen and problem with developing "Milk surrogacy".  We have egg donors, sperm donors, surrogate mothers --- all sorts of relationships of that sort.  Some more medicalized and costly than others.  It seems to me, that even in the United States, with careful research into the potential risks (the viruses that are not as commonly thought about beyond HIV) and into the litigation pitfalls, such an organization could come up with an airtight "contract" between donor and recipient.  And I see no reason why there really should be a divide between young and old.  In fact, the whole issue is of sufficient interest that I'm probably going to discuss this whole issue with one of my interns because she is really very careful about making sure her behind is covered from litigation.

I also have seen that well intended volunteer causes can be "copycatted" by those who are market oriented or who are less thorough in their research.  So, I can see a role for assisting parents to wade through those causes that are more careful from those who are not.  I personally still find it a challenge myself when I go online and investigate causes.

Best, Susan Burger

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome