Your second point is one I hadn't considered. I suppose for some conditions, there would be a correlation between lowered quality of life and early death, in which case a 'longevity insurance' company would calculate quality of life as a correlated factor of longevity. For example, blindness probably has a higher rate of accidental death, so there would be some incentive for the insurance company to help, but the incentive is not as strong as the individual's desire for the improved quality of life that sight would bring.

As an aside, it seems to me that evolution has factored these correlations in as well. We have two eyes, presumably, because an insurance policy against blindness improves the chance of procreation. Unfortunately, as individuals, we don't necessarily want to maximize posterity, but some unique mix of longevity and posterity.

I wonder if people with ADHD experience less pain at having to leave what one is currently doing to make a decision.

You might be underestimating the value of social involvement in your equation. If new people become involved in the organization as a result of a "fundraiser" then this may lead to a higher expected value than direct donation, all things being equal.

Also in the news two days ago:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/uorm-csp101509.php

"Compound shows potential for slowing progression of ALS"

FYI, there is a new report from the American Academy of Neurology out just today that offers new guidelines for the best treatments for ALS:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/aaon-ngi100609.php