Why charity is BAD for deaf people...

Ethically and morally wrong ?   Most people would say that charity is always good, but not everyone. Some argue that charity is sometimes carried out badly - or less well than it should be - while others think that charity can bring bad results even when it is well implemented.  The earlier arguments  are criticisms of the whole idea of charity and charitable giving.

Later arguments focus on some aspects of charity that they claim are bad. E.G.

Charity may benefit the state rather than the needy

Dr Neil Levy has argued that charity can be self-defeating if it allows the state to escape some of its responsibilities.

Large-scale philanthropy to support 'essential services' is wrong: Charity to support essential services is bad because it switches provision from government to charity, rather than increasing benefits to the needy. ...large-scale philanthropic activity carries with it serious risks of changing the balance of funding from the public to the private sector, thereby exposing those most in need to the vicissitudes of the market. To the extent that private funding of essential services becomes the norm, the vulnerable become the recipients of (at best) uncertain aid, which is liable to fluctuations and constant reduction.

(Neil Levy, Against Philanthropy).

The argument goes something like this. If the charity sector increases spending in an area also funded by government then there is a risk that government will choose to spend less in that area with the result that governments save money, and extra benefits provided by the charity spend are reduced. 

SOURCE