First of all, I agree with the folks who reacted to this query with the
thought "Oh no, here we go again, Health Promotion defined as
Prevention". I think we're talking here about prevention fee for service.

I think perhaps the issue of fee for service is about who offers the
service. If my colleague offers a stress reduction program at a community
health centre ( i.e. an organization funded by our taxes) then there should
be no fee for service. However, when she offers this same course
privately I don't have a problem with her charging.

However, in order to leverage funds to be able to offer even more of a
limited service that is in high demand, is there anything wrong with asking
for donations? For example, it's something clients of our stress reduction
program at the community health centre I worked at formerly, used to ask
about -" I can afford to pay for this - you have a long waiting list - can we
contribute to increase the pot of money available so you can offer this
course more often?"

What do you think? Is this still the slippery slope?

I also think of this question in terms of use of resources. If we have
funding for  health promoters who can offer prevention/health ed
programs and can also do work on the broader determinants of health,
we can't increase our funding  by asking people to pay for our advocacy
work, community devt work, etc. So does charging for health
ed/prevention programs give us the leverage to free up resources to
work on the other aspects of HP? This IS the slippery slope in my opinion.
But it's a tough one in times of cutbacks when you want to maintain
existing initiatives and instigate new ones.