The Abercrombie Emergency Room.

On Wednesday, “The New York Times” published details behind the Abercrombie & Fitch Emergency Department and Trauma Center that is being constructed for the Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. Abercrombie and Fitch donated $10 million to the hospital and, in appreciation, the hospital decided to name the new emergency center after the company.

This provoked much opposition from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood coalition. The coalition claims that advertisements for Abercrombie and Fitch are too provocative and use sexuality to market to children and teens. They argue that naming the emergency room after the company would marry the Abercrombie brand and reputation to the children’s hospital.

Donating money to a children’s hospital is generous and necessary for the life of the hospital. A donation of $10 million to a single hospital is worth erecting or re-naming a hospital wing in the honor of the donator. No matter if that contributor is a single person, family or brand. This decision should not take into account the type of advertising strategy the company currently employs.

Take a second to consider the commercialization of the Mattel Children’s Hospital U.C.L.A. or the Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Rhode Island. Granted Hasbro and Mattel are children’s toy makers, but they are also successful companies with the ability to donate in large quantities. This is also the case for Abercrombie and Fitch. Should it matter that the money comes from a company with provocative ads? Should it matter where the money comes from at all? Shouldn’t it be about the children and their needs that can be met through donations? Would the name of the emergency room really stop a worried parent from taking their sick child to the hospital? It shouldn’t and it won’t.