I sincerely think that the reaction of a potential donor may be of rejection. It should be a donor who already knows the situation and perhaps more could be encouraged to be part of it. I, therefore, my advice is no, do not

I am in a similar situation in the association and have both the current thought.
I do not "would bring" the case to the donor in this way, make it "represented" by a person knowledgeable and prepared, it can be a person with a disability, a family member or a volunteer. Obviously sponsorship is a far cry from the donations, but as a general rule to involve volunteers (aware and prepared) is not wrong, the only association personnel, as motivated, not ever fully represent. This can also be an advantage for the image that the sponsor and the association wants to, eg.: I do not do charity, but I invest in people. Of course if you do not find a suitable person for all you'd better go alone.

I think the best approach is to present to the donor by putting it in front of the findings and initiatives in a "positive".
Let me explain: the meeting ended, the donor should be happy for what he does and the ONP for outstanding achievements, and not sad about what it faces. The presence of a person with TEC, if only to raise awareness, I consider it counterproductive.
Trying to see things in a different context, in my reality, where, unfortunately, it comes to cancer patients, if I went from a potential donor accompanied by a patient (perhaps, pardon the cynicism, complete with a drip column of) what would I get?

Having organzzato meeting with and providing care and attention to find a situation "comfortable" for both the manager and the person affected by TEC, I believe that there is nothing to be ashamed. You're communicating the reason for requesting sponsorship leading instead of words, graphics, photos or videos a person of flesh and bones. Indeed my photos of Africa adopted children can not argue and they need to delegate to me, with the risk of misunderstanding, and your friend can tell her with TCE.

In general I think the moment of "witness" can 'be successful when in a first step "educational" which tells the program to potential donors. In this phase, the witness goes only to complete the presentation of the organization.
In the second phase in which the request is directed to the precise contribution could actually embarrass' the other person.

This 'said the witness is not' necessarily an "exploitation". In general, the testimony of a successful rehabilitation and reintegration of the patient, can 'help confirm the validita'e seriousness' of the program for which funds are collected. Of course, if done in the parameters of respect and dignity 'of the person. In Italy we are not accustomed to stories rips tears.
But the aim is not 'that type "circus sideshow" to show the poor who suffered the accident. You do not want to publicize the "need" / "necessity" but the success, the triumph of the program and consequently the successful completion of any donation. I guess the fact that potential witness, and 'a man of 40 years, of good presence who describes how that program helped him to recover ... etc etc ... to reintegrate

Perhaps to avoid embarrassing moments, it might make sense to produce a video with a series of witnesses "happy" to show to potential donors. In this way you avoid the embarrassment of the interlocutor maintaining the strength of testimony.
Hello and thank you.

The question is certainly delicate, and we work with our association with the children long-term patients in hospitals and pediatric practices have always avoided "represent" the children in question as recipients of direct sponsorship, but rather we seek to better represent services that the sponsor, donor, etc. ... makes available to participating and funding the project. One idea we have made and that might be useful to you, was to create a short movie where you "see" the actual sense of service and activities, of course, in our case, the children are never visible, are shoulders or reversed itself, highlighting the movement, in short, the positive result and never the damage ... I think a form of protection against them is absolutely unavoidable, and not only: it is in protecting the people to whom we devote to these efforts, we can make to Our partner the high sense of ethics to which we adhere. I think. In any case, your initiative is very valuable and useful, so my best wishes, will be fine!
Annalisa Coppola

I analizzerei case by case basis, while respecting the dignity and sensitivity of all the choices and especially the volunteer organization. And 'some' speech that has been done on the photographs by Oliviero Toscani: naked and raw, with the reality on the front page.
As for my work, sometimes it's been useful to "show", "to live" (I remember the dinners in the dark), or make tangible (such as walking in a wheelchair) to supporters of the situations that often could not know in depth.
In my opinion, but you should not ever get to a spectacle of pain.
Greetings to all.
Raffaele PICILLI

Eh ... hard to give simple answers to complex questions! Personally, I incline to the active participation of the beneficiaries of awareness activities and fund raising, which excludes, from my point of view, the involvement of these in a report dealing with a sponsorship, where the focus of any sponsors as well as on good cause, is also focused on other aspects (target, communication, instruments, markets, etc..)
So in this case do not see any utility the presence of a face of this type.
The evaluation becomes rather different if we are dealing with a request for a donation or a "donorizzazione" (ref. article Melandri, and Accorroni Palmas on the Third Sector, some time ago). In this case, if the testimonial is conscious and in a position to exercise a role, and why not, if he has no appetite, I see no reason not to participate .... Certainly, taking into account the sensitivity of the potential donor (sometimes we autocensuriamo fundraiser we underestimating the abilities and sensibilities of our interlocutors. sometimes things are much easier to imagine how).
I remember one of 12 of fundraising ideas (forgive me but again I quote Melandri in "The Fr for Nonprofits" book published 8 years ago, but I find topical and what advice the use), that the right for 6: which begins : A plan of fundraising success that iIt is conducted:
the right person asking the right DONOR .... (then there are other 4G). The rule can not stop here, giving the method but not the specific answer, the rest of the assessment is on duty to Fr.
My experience: I made two campaigns fr, after a year apart, for an association of people with disabilities (severe), objective (a residential community) in the first on the poster were two pretty nice to faccioni disabled children (who were also so much fun to make the photos and were happy to see themselves in a thousand places), the following year, for various reasons, it was decided (I want to say that I did not agree) to put in the manifest the property where the residential community was about to be realized: ricutlato: the first went well, the second absolutely evil.
Perhaps the example is not entirely relevant, but maybe you can help do some reflection.
I learned a lot about the dignity of people watching (and learning) behaviors of the disabled and sick, I do not see why this could not happen to others, including donors.
If not then we all have the same sensitivity to the specific cause, patience, this must be accepted as an element of freedom, the same must be recognized when the donor decides whether or not to share our mission.

Luciano

Hi all,
I am the author of this post kindly published by Prof.Melandri. Rather than find a solution to this case, the intent of my letter was to raise the issue. The healthcare sector is definitely the land on which such situations may arise, and in my opinion we should not pretend that "exploitation" and utilitarian visions of the person can not be deployed even in the non-profit organizations. So the good solution (as I see it offered the Prof.Melandri in his last post) is coincident with the nature of the relation between the donor and the witness: I think should be shared good "relational goods" (as I discussed at length with my thesis supervisor Prof. Benedetto Gui!), a shared heritage of understanding, knowledge, trust, respect that gives full dignity to this mode of supporting the good cause and to shine as contempofar is human in all actors involved. This, in practice, of course, is best achieved when both donor and a witness already known for some time, otherwise, as it may establish a mutual sympathy at their first meeting, I think there is a risk of falling into pity and commiseration on the part of the donor and in a passive and demeaning ACCEPTANCE by the witness, who would become almost a "calling card". In all this I think the fundraiser should have the ability to sesnbilizzare so as professionally as compared to the case and clear, even implicitly, because of the presence of the witness, not a "Look what's here, do not mortify us?" Rather a "Look what problems exist, what can we do together to address them? We have the answers, you want to help? ". Thanks for your interest, it's nice to know there is so much activity and interest around the principles that animate this profession!
Greetings
Richard Friede

[...] These days I have followed with interest the debate provoked Blog Valerio Melandri letter from Richard, a young fundraiser association which deals with brain concussion [...]

ENERALMENTE PEOPLE TAKE ONE WITH HEAD TRAUMA meager pension, I wonder why ANYONE FOR THEIR S'INTERESSI.
HOW CAN 'A LIVING PERSON AFFECTED BY A HEAD TRAUMA WITH A BOARD OF miserable ...
240 EURO A MONTH
THIS IS THE ONE THAT meager pension took 20 YEARS AGO.
I BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE INCREASED.
...
MAYBE TAKE HER TO TAKE A THOUSAND EUROS PER MONTH.