Skip to main content

Haiti Adoption Story

Most of us have seen or read stories of adoptions of Haitian children following the earthquake last month. Some of the stories have had a positive slant (the charity has saved children...) other's have had a negative slant (the "missionaries" who kidnapped and tried to smuggle 33 children across the border into the Dominican Republic).

At a family gathering yesterday, my wife heard a story about a couple that was "finally" able to adopt a child they've been trying to adopt for about 4 years. As the story was related to me, this couple had originally been matched with this child about 4 years ago, but the adoption was cancelled when the parents of the child took her back and parented her themselves. After about three years of caring for the child, the natural parents returned her to the orphanage because both of them had been diagnosed with tuberculosis; a death sentence in Haiti. (Mortality for untreated TB is about 67%.) The adoption was finalized just before the earth quake, and the child was brought "home" the the US in the last week.

On the surface, this seems like a wonderful story. This couple has taken this child, not quite but soon to be an orphan, in to their home and made her a part of their family.

But if we look a little beneath the surface, it is troubling. The adopters in this case had contact with the family in Haiti for at least three years, and sought merely to adopt this child. I don't know how much money they spent in the process, but the numbers typically run to five figures, sometimes high five figures. I have to wonder if some of this money could have been used to provide medical care for the child's parents.

According to this study, the typical cost of tuberculosis treatment is about $3892 if uncomplicated, and about $17,952 when there are complications. Wouldn't it have been better for the child to remain with healthy and living parents? With proper treatment, the mortality rate for TB drops to about 5%.

This adoption served the interests of the adopters, it most certainly did not serve the interests of the child. But even more troubling is the fact that these adopters had the ability to prevent the trauma to the child of losing her parents, and yet, in order to further their agenda of adopting a child -- which probably makes them feel they've done some charitable act, they let two human beings die -- the child's parents -- that they might have been able to save if the resources the used to purchase their Haitian child were used to care for the child's parents.

This is but one more piece of evidence that supports my conclusion that adoption is often not an act of charity, but a process of profiting from the misfortunes of others.

Comments

淑君 said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
敬周喜 said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Popular posts from this blog

Agregate Demand and the US Savings Rate

In my last post, I touched on the differences between the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes and Ludwig von Mises. Immediately aftward, I was directed to this story in the New York Times. It seems that americans are saving more instead of spending the their money on consumer goods. Up until this downturn, about 70% of the US Economy was consumer spending, and in 2005, the US Savings rate was negative 2.7%. The "stimulus" is supposed to stimulate spending to get money moving again. But it isn't happening as planned. Folks are saving for down payments because they don't expect to get zero down home mortgages; they're saving to replenish their decimated retirement and college funds. The austrians believe that the best way to "fix" the economy is to allow the "malinvestment" created by the false signals in the economy (from the open market ops and deficit spending) to be liquidated and the resources repurposed into better investments. It...

Conventional Wisdom Meets Reality:
There Ought Not to be a Law

The "before" picture of an intersection near Bristol, England: Maximum traffic of 1700 cars per hour and about 300 pedestrians. Commute time for some people using the intersection over 20 minutes in rush hour traffic. The "after" picture: Traffic flow increased to 2000 cars per hour, and still handles the 300 pedestrians. Commute time reduced to just 5 minutes. In the eight months since the change, there have only been two minor incidents, and not a single person (motorist or pedestrian) has been injured in an accident. How did they do it? What new technology did they use to effect this miraculous change? They took out the traffic conrol signals! Yes, you read that right, the traffic lights were removed. By removing all of the red, yellow and green lights, the motorists became more courteous, more cautious, and more sharing of the road way. In complete defiance of the conventional wisdom. This experiment raises a lot of very interesting questions. First, do our pre...