DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Rich on February 06, 2008, 01:25:28 PM
-
USA Makes Adoption Harder
By John Stossel
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Do you want to rescue an abandoned child and give him a loving home?
Don't even try, says the U.S. State Department.
That's not exactly what the bureaucrats said, but it's close. The State Department says the Guatemalan adoption system "unduly enriches" so-called baby brokers and that "Guatemala has not established the required central authority to oversee intercountry adoption."
"Central authority"? This from our government? They sound like Soviet apparatchiks.
Last December, the U.S. consul even butted his way into the Guatemalan Congress to make sure a sweeping new adoption law was up to American standards. The law is designed to put those profit-making brokers out of business by making adoption a government monopoly. But to thousands of kids awaiting adoption, a government monopoly could be a death sentence.
Yes, there have been horror stories about adoption fraud. Some children were stolen from families. This is horrible, but far from the norm. Out of more than 100 cases of alleged "baby stealing," only five were confirmed as true, says Guatemalan journalist Marta Yolanda Diaz-Duran. That's five crimes versus about 4,000 legal adoptions from Guatemala in 2006 alone. Guatemala has been the second leading source of adopted children coming to America -- after China and ahead of Russia. The adoption-broker system -- which relied on entrepreneurs providing a service for a fee -- worked well enough that Guatemala was an adoption success story.
American adoption agencies (charging a fee) worked with Guatemalan adoption brokers (also charging a fee) to match willing couples with the right children. There was a near-perfect safeguard against baby stealing: two rounds of DNA tests to prove the biological mother gave consent.
The process wasn't cheap -- parents paid $25,000 or more, and brokers who spent months or years jumping though the bureaucratic hoops -- made, horrors, profit! Hence our State Department's outrage about adoptions that "unduly enrich." The sentiment was captured perfectly by a UNICEF representative who huffed to The New York Times that adoption "has become a business instead of a social service."
Oh, yes, everyone loves "social service." But when adoption was a government-run social service in Guatemala, the results were disastrous.
I happened to be in Guatemala City last month visiting the Americas' most free-market university, Universidad Francisco Marroquin. UFM's president took me to visit Ines Ayau, a nun who runs an orphanage that was formerly in the hands of the government. The children are well cared for now, but before her church took over, Ayau said, the government staff had forced some children into prostitution. The orphanage itself was rat-infested and without electricity, and the government used the facility to funnel money to cronies. "Thirty-six persons were working, (but) 105 were on the payroll,"
Yet U.S. officials want adoption back in the hands of government?!
There's little reason to expect the current government to do much better. Guatemala is one of the more corrupt nations in the world, 111th out of 179 countries, says Transparency International.
Even if the new bureaucracy isn't corrupt, there's little chance it will process adoptions as quickly as the brokers did because without profit, it has no incentive to move the kids through the cumbersome adoption process. When other countries have put adoption in government hands, adoptions slowed or stopped. Paraguay went from sending more than 400 kids to the U.S. in 1996 to sending zero in 2006.
That's a tragedy.
It may make some people uncomfortable that a middleman charges $5,000 to arrange an adoption, but profit isn't evil.
Someone has to be compensated for arranging the DNA tests and leading hopeful parents past the government's obstacles. The orphanages need funds. If some Americans are willing to pay even $50,000 to adopt, that's not a bad thing. NGOs, politicians and bureaucrats may call it disgusting "human trafficking," but I call it finding love for children who desperately need it.
Guatemala has followed America's lead, and now thousands of abandoned Guatemalan kids face spending their childhood in orphanages. Many could have found a home in the U.S. if only government -- American and Guatemalan -- had stayed out of the way.
John Stossel is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
-
It may make some people uncomfortable that a middleman charges $5,000 to arrange an adoption, but profit isn't evil.
===============================================================================
That is an unconsciousable amount of money for a small amount of paperwork. It is, in fact selling children, and yes, it IS evil.
Just like John Stossel buying your kidney would be evil.
-
I really thought there might be a concensus on this one. I should have known better.
$5000 is actually pretty cheap. I have a friend who paid twice that and went to the Ukraine, and stayed for two weeks on his own dime to adopt a baby. I would suggest that numbers like that attract people who really want a child and can afford one.
So tell me, Why can't I sell my kidney?
-
it`s a grey ethical area.
it`s repulsive for you to charge for giving the gift of life to somebody else
but if you don`t give it somebody may die.
also as a american it`s totally racist for you to charge more than $75 for your kidney.
in india you can get one for $75
so to be fair you should just lower the price for your kidney.
-
>>it`s repulsive for you to charge for giving the gift of life to somebody else<<
Why? Selling your kidney could save a life. Why deny someone that chance? Who are you hurting? It's not like it's going to turn into a thriving trade. If I want to go through the surgery, it's worth something isn't it? You won't get someone knocking on your door, "Can we have your kidney?" "Well, I'm using it right now."
-
That is an unconsciousable amount of money for a small amount of paperwork.
Why?
It is, in fact selling children, and yes, it IS evil.
Adopting a domestic child through public adoption services can cost a couple thousand dollars, and that doesn't include attorney fees. Is that selling children?
What I find odd is that people in the U.S. are willing to pay $5000 and more to adopt a child from Guatemala to help give it a better life, but if the family of a Guatemalan child wanted to come to the U.S. to make a better life for their child(ren), there are people who think we need to force them to pay out at least several hundred dollars in fees and wait several years before they can come into the country and then pay out more money just to stay here. That, imo, is seriously screwed up.
Just like John Stossel buying your kidney would be evil.
Why would that be evil? My kidney belongs to me, does it not? Why would receiving compensation for giving up a kidney be evil?
-
Let's say that you are seriously down on your luck and in desperate need of money, and Stoessel comes along and offers you money for it.
I supose it is all right with me, but I still think there is something sick about a rich John Stoessel (or any other rich fellow, even one far less annoying than J.S.) taking advantage of a desperately impoverished person.
Let's pose a moral question. Suppose you are the leader of Mudovia, a desperately poor nation with depleated resources, a polluted atmosphere and water supply, and a poor life expectancy. I am thinking of someplace like Moldova. Your only real assets are a large number of Mudovians who have healthy body parts and swarms of cute little Mudovian babies.
Would it be ethical for your government to set up agencies that would provide for the safe sale of kidneys or other body parts that people have two of, such as eyes, lungs, ears, and a modest tax of say 10% on the sale to provide for the welfare of other Mudovians?
Would it be ethical to sell Mudovian babies to prosperous Europeans, Americans, Canadians, Abu Dhabians, and others for adoption under a similar arrangement? A similar Agency for the Export of Cute Excess Babies could be set up to provide for the welfare of the adoptees as well as those Mudovians.
Would it be ethical to invest in research to improve the quality of Mudivian body parts? Would it be ethical to breed babies for cuteness?
Where exactly would you find this unethical?
-
Let's say that you are seriously down on your luck and in desperate need of money, and Stoessel comes along and offers you money for it.
I supose it is all right with me, but I still think there is something sick about a rich John Stoessel (or any other rich fellow, even one far less annoying than J.S.) taking advantage of a desperately impoverished person.
So that negates the fact that the kidney is mine how, exactly?
I did like you equation paying for a kidney with taking advantage of a person. Imo, expecting someone to hand over a kidney without recompense would be taking advantage of someone.
Let's say you're just a healthy, middle class fellow, and medical investigation turns up that you are the best match for some rich guy who is willing to pay you for one of your kidneys. You're not starving, but a few extra hundred (or thousand perhaps) dollars wouldn't hurt you any. Should you be prevented from selling your kidney just so some other schmuck can claim that someone else isn't taking advantage of the poor?
Let's pose a moral question. Suppose you are the leader of Mudovia, a desperately poor nation with depleated resources, a polluted atmosphere and water supply, and a poor life expectancy. I am thinking of someplace like Moldova. Your only real assets are a large number of Mudovians who have healthy body parts and swarms of cute little Mudovian babies.
Would it be ethical for your government to set up agencies that would provide for the safe sale of kidneys or other body parts that people have two of, such as eyes, lungs, ears, and a modest tax of say 10% on the sale to provide for the welfare of other Mudovians?
You would prefer a free market in organs? Or do you think people should just hand over organs for free?
Would a government setting up agencies to provide for the safe sale of body parts be unethical? In and of itself, no. Setting up a program for the deliberate harvesting and sale of organs as a means of government income? Yes, that would probably be unethical [insert eye roll here].
Would it be ethical to sell Mudovian babies
No. But then, we're not talking about selling babies. We're talking about paying for adoption services.
Would it be ethical to invest in research to improve the quality of Mudivian body parts?
Would it be ethical invest in research that could improve the health of citizens? Gee that's a hard one...
Would it be ethical to breed babies for cuteness?
I am guessing you mean, would government deliberately implementing a eugenic breeding program to increase the cuteness of babies for the sole purpose of "selling" them be ethical? The answer is no.
Where exactly would you find this unethical?
I'm not sure to what "this" refers, or why you're asking about where I might find something unethical. I don't recall saying there were any boundaries, national or otherwise, involved.
-
In recent years, it has become increasingly evident that executed prisoners are the principal source of supply of body organs for medical transplantation purposes in China
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/china1/china_948.htm
The obvious linkage between China's extensive use of the death penalty and the country's burgeoning organ trade and transplant program has attracted mounting international attention and alarm. In 1993, the U.N. Committee Against Torture formally asked the Chinese government "whether the death sentence might not constitute a form of cruel and unusual punishment...[and] whether the bodies of persons executed could be used for the purpose of organ transplants."(2) Later the same year, a report on the British government's first human rights delegation to China officially called upon the Chinese government to produce "a code of conduct for executions which prohibits...the use of organs from executed prisoners for spare part surgery."(3) An estimated 2,000 to 3,000 organs (mainly kidneys and corneas) from prisoners each year are used in this manner, with government officials reportedly receiving priority in their allocation.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][[
Looks like potential for abuse exists , a good kidney might be worth a huge sum to someone , can there be a right to have a kidney not your own?
-
>>Looks like potential for abuse exists , a good kidney might be worth a huge sum to someone , can there be a right to have a kidney not your own?<<
There's always the potential that government might abuse anything. That's a different debate.
That aside, if I sell my kidney to a willing customer we both get what we want. Who does it hurt, and why should someone have to power to deny me this choice?
-
Who does it hurt
well you actually
you`ll be missing a kidney
I`m pretty sure your lifespan will be shorten by it
but as a adult it`s your choice to do it
smokers do it and they pay money to shorten thier life
-
People do just fine with one kidney.
Again, if I need to money, and you need a kidney, everybody wins.
What's the problem?
It's my kidney, who are you to tell me I can't make that choice?
-
People do just fine with one kidney.
Again, if I need to money, and you need a kidney, everybody wins.
What's the problem?
It's my kidney, who are you to tell me I can't make that choice?
Hmmmmmmmm....
Bill Gates will never die.
That a problem?
-
Not with me.
I imagine our local socialists and communists might not like it. But if Bill wants my kidney, the price just went up!
-
but would you sell your kid?
-
I really thought there might be a concensus on this one. I should have known better.
$5000 is actually pretty cheap. I have a friend who paid twice that and went to the Ukraine, and stayed for two weeks on his own dime to adopt a baby. I would suggest that numbers like that attract people who really want a child and can afford one.
So tell me, Why can't I sell my kidney?
As you know, we recently, four months ago, adopted a little girl from Ethiopia. We had also looked into Guatemala. Guatemala was about $30-40K per child becuase it is accomplished via private attroneys and the government doesn't oversee it very well. Recently, due to a series of high-profile cases, the government was forced to intervene.
We spent $15K for our little girl, including airfare. In Ethiopia, the government oversees the process pretty well and so you hear of few problems. China also oversees the process pretty well.
-
Sure, how much you got?
-
As you know, we recently, four months ago, adopted a little girl from Ethiopia. We had also looked into Guatemala. Guatemala was about $30-40K per child becuase it is accomplished via private attroneys and the government doesn't oversee it very well. Recently, due to a series of high-profile cases, the government was forced to intervene.
We spent $15K for our little girl, including airfare. In Ethiopia, the government oversees the process pretty well and so you hear of few problems. China also oversees the process pretty well.
That's news to me Professor. Congratulations
-
We spent $15K for our little girl, including airfare. In Ethiopia, the government oversees the process pretty well and so you hear of few problems. China also oversees the process pretty well.
=======================================
I would imagine that for fifteen grand, one should be entitled to first-class oversight and paper-pushing.
In Mudovia, I was thinking they could sell the cute little tykes for maybe $3,000 and still make a profit.
But this way, you get to support a while tribe of lawyers, it would appear.
I don't deny that people have a right to spend their money any way they wish, but this is exploitation.