Weirder or less weird about this than about other things people do with their money? Seems better than going on vacation or owning fancier houses, which are things nobody bats an eye at.
Is the conflict about how much social credit you give the donors for being generous, but inefficient? You want to appreciate the generosity while bemoaning the inefficiency. Sounds like you are, at least a bit, Utilitarian in that.
I personally focus on the generosity—doing something uncoerced to help someone, at some cost to oneself, is laudable. Yay them! There are certainly some ineffeciencies and side-effects that would make the consequences negative or zero, and this would make me less supportive, of course. But that doesn’t apply here—I recognize that it’s complicated what the actual effects are. The $2M isn’t being burned to keep the kid alive, it’s going to fund professionals, equipment, and systems which will save the kid, but also be in place to save more kids and generally get better at saving people.
Should’ve clarified: The $2M is, indeed, being burned, in the sense that it’s for developing a customized genetic treatment.That being said, your point still applies: Presumably each person who purchases this treatment is contributing to some technological polishing and helping eventually make this cheaper. Presumably!