NU CPS UPCTitle: An Analysis of Ethical Dilemma of International Adoption

(Science and Society Research Project Final Draft)

Name: Meruyert Sarsembayeva

Student ID: 201021648

Research Skill’s Tutor: Tony Bastow

Word Count:

Submission date:

Adoption boundaries have steadily extended since the World War II, Korean War and Vietnam

War, where many children became orphans. As a response to them winners, especially

Americans started to adopt children from the war-torn countries (Wilkinson 1995, 174). Thus, it

was a start point for international adoption. Intercountry (international or transnational) adoption

is defined as adoption, where child is removed to the adoptees’ country. In recent times motives

to adopt internationally are explained as charity of wealthier and more developed nations, a wish

to help countries, which are fighting with economic problems, and also insufficient numbers of

babies within the country. The rate of international adoption increased dramatically, rising more

concerns about its ethics. While some people see international adoption as a positive

intervention, which provides good opportunities to parentless children and to adoptive parents as

well, other people see it as child trafficking, supporting this fact by evidences of child

exploitation and abusing for sexual motives. Some countries, such as Romania, Vietnam, and

Kazakhstan, started closing boundaries for international adoption for unknown time period. So,

the aim of this essay is to examine is international adoption a positive or negative intervention.

Firstly, arguments for intercountry adoption will be presented. Then, the essay will progress to

the presentation of the arguments against international adoption. Finally, it will attempt to

evaluate arguments critically, and find is international adoption good or bad intervention. It will

be argued that considering child’s interests in the first place international adoption has more

positive than negative effects.

The theme of intercountry adoption is widely discussed around the world. Since popular show-

busyness stars adopted children internationally, a lot of journals and newspapers raise the topic

about ethics of international adoption (Mezmur 2008, 145-147). In past years a rate of

2

international adoption increased by approximately 16% from 1998 to 2007 (Selman 2009, 576).

Figure 1 shows the rate of international adoption increased dramatically from approximately

32000 to 45000 children in 1998- 2004 years; then it has started to decrease. Such big numbers in

the rate of international adoption and popularity of it raises more and more positive and negative

concerns. The whole society started to pay more attention to it, asking questions and ricing

ethical dilemma of international adoption. The importance of this topic is significant, since

children are the most precious parts of every nation. Country’s well-being includes not only

economic stability and military force, but children’s happiness as well. Especially the future and

happiness of abandoned children depends on international adoption. Accordingly, taking into

account rate of intercountry adoption and its current problems the topic is relevant nowadays.

Figure 1: Trends in intercountry adoptions to 23 receiving countries; top five receiving countries; USA and Europe, 1998–2007

(Selman 2009, 578)

The first argument against international adoption is that it is a way to traffic children. The

procedure of international adoption includes adoption fees, which are often in average ten

3

thousand dollars; however there are evidences, that child can be resold several times. For

instance, in India there were serious shocking scandals of child trafficking. It was disclosed that

penurious parents were paid by scouts for selling their infants, and then scouts sold these infants

to the orphanage and received some profits. In turn, orphanages placed these infants for

international adoption, receiving payments for the adoption, that much higher, then they had paid

to scouts (Smolin 2004, 288). It is not only Indian case, but such manipulations were met in other

countries as well. According to UNICEF, 1000-1500 Guatemalan babies and children are

trafficked each year by couples in North America and Europe. More negative way of child

trafficking, that sometimes children are trafficked for sexual motives, or as labours. For example,

in Mexico more than 16000 children engaged in prostitution, and half of them adopted children

(Wardle, Bruce and Clark 2008, 119). Children are not supposed to be as commodity,

nevertheless intercountry adoption create children import and export trade, and the business of

buying and selling.

Next argument states that internationally adopted children are deprived of their culture, identity

formation and native language. Mostly, children are adopted before they are 5-7 years old, at this

age it is less problematical for children to learn new language very fast; though the problem is

that they at the same time and at the same speed lose their native language (Wilkinson 1995, 177-

180). The loss of native language is very meaningful loss, in view of the fact that language is the

most essential element of a culture. Later, identity formation is disturbed more and more with

child’s adjustment to the new culture. As a result children may lose their native identity at all or

partially. For instance, according to Kuhl (1985, 180), all international adoptees in Germany

identified themselves as being German, and only one third of them had an interest in their

4

motherland. The results of survey of Asian adoptees in Denmark show that three quarter of

adoptees counted themselves as Danish, other felt some difficulties of their national differences.

Similarly to German adoptees only third of Asian adoptees wanted to know more about their

native culture. The loss of the native identity and culture is loss of person’s history, past as well,

and without history and past person cannot move forward to the future. Hence, international

adoption creates not only loss of the native language, culture and identity, but a loss of history,

which is very important in the meaning of spiritual heritage.

A further argument against intercountry adoption is that developed countries are not allowed to

remove children from developing countries only because there is insufficient number of children

available for adoption within a country. As Martin (2007) argues, transnational adoption is

“modern day imperialism, allowing dominant, developed cultures to strip away a developing

country’s most precious resources, its children”. Children are a future of the country, and

abandoned children are not exceptions. Every child may become a great person, every child is

special, and he or she only needs some help and push to realize own talents. Children potentially

are creators of country’s economy and politics. By removing children country decreases not only

population, but its future development’s potential, and increases it in developed countries.

Developing countries to become developed should be responsible for their children and take care

of them. In addition, developed countries should solve problems of its “baby shortage” not by

carting off children in poor countries, because this action does not deserve praise considering the

status of developed nations. Accordingly, intercountry adoption consents to remove children by

developed rich nations from poor countries.

5

Moving to the arguments for international adoption, firstly, transnational adoption provides

opportunity for children to have family, love, nurture, safety, education. To have a family is the

most important thing in child’s development as a person. According to Wilkinson (1995) only

family can give a child full physical and spiritual growth, support the child for achieving goals

and aims, and success in future. What is more, adoptees can provide child with good quality high

education, giving opportunities for a big career growth, and as a result to realise all expectations

in the life. All these factors and prospects are what every native family wants for their child to

have. Therefore intercountry adoption is the noble charitable act of people, who takes stranger

children from different countries and different cultures to provide them life in family and bright

future.

Next argument is that international adoption prevents children from institutionalization.

Institutionalization care is very different in various countries, however it is often associated with

poor health care and assistance. For instance, according to Dillon (2003), mortality rates for

infants at Shanghai Children’s Welfare institute were about 90%, the reason is quality of health

care. Another terrible example of bad care is Russia, where researches show that abandoned

children’s chances to survive are very small because of abuse, neglect and discrimination, and

most of children would end up involved in criminal world (ibid). Health care is vital in

childhood, because the organism develops from birth, therefore it is crucial to provide good

health assistance for children. Intercountry adoption can reduce the number of children in

orphanages, and certainly adoptees can provide children good medical assistance, which is low

under institutionalisation care. Accordingly, international adoption prevents children from living

under poor health institutionalisation care.

6

The last argument for intercountry adoption states that international adoption reduces the number

of street children in the world. According to UNICEF, in the world there are approximately 100

million children live in the streets. Figure 1 shows that 45 million of the street children are in

Latin America, 27 million in Asia and 10 million in Africa. These regions are concentrated with

developing countries. Countries’ bad economic situation, high level of poverty, the minimal use

of contraceptives, and strict measures and laws on abortion contribute to the world population of

parentless and abandoned children (Katz 1995, 287). According to Seugling (2004), abandoned

and parentless children in poor countries, where system of children’s care are wicked, not

developed, often increase the number of street children. Therefore international adoption can

change this situation, parentless children will have opportunities to be adopted and not to live in

the streets in the case of Third World countries. As UNAIDS (2002) states 108 million orphans,

from which 13 million AIDS orphans, live in 88 Third World nations in Africa, Latin America

and the Caribbean. International adoption in less-developed countries can reduce the number of

parentless children and street children as well.

Figure 2: Number of street children by regions in 2009.(Adapted from Street Children Statistics, 2009)

7

Collecting all arguments for and against it is important to add Hague Adoption Convention

issues. Hague adoption convention is an agreement between participating countries to protect

children rights, prevent child trafficking, abduction and selling in international adoption

processes. This convention’s main point is to protect “the best interests of the child with respect

for his or her fundamental rights” (Convention on protection of children and co-operation in

respect of intercountry adoption, 1993). Convention main condition is that child can be adopted

internationally only in the case of last opportunity, where child have no chances to be adopted

within the country (UNICEF's position on Inter-country adoption n.d.). There are nine

requirements of international adoptions’ accreditation, such as ethical aspects, information

dissemination, service planning and other in Hague convention countries. By January 2008 the

convention was ratified by 51 countries from 83, others are in progress (Intercountry adoption

from Hague convention and non-Hague convention countries, 2009). Therefore, with the

implementation and ratification of The Hague Adoption convention problems of child trafficking

tend to be solved. So, the first argument against international adoption is still remaining only for

non-convention countries.

Taking into account rest arguments for and against, it should be considered that child’s interests

are in the first place. As a result, for positive physical and psychological development to have

family, which provides child with love, safety, nurture, education, is more important than not to

lose identity, language and culture to some extent. Because family teaches children how to live,

what kinds of relationships are expected within the family, and culture cannot give children the

basic family knowledge. Another negative point, which states that transnational adoption is

modern day imperialism does not outweigh the fact that international adoption reduces number of

8

street children, and help to avoid institutionalization for some children. Because looking to the

problems of parentless children and to the situation of street children, rest of the world cannot

ignore the fact that less developed nations cannot take care of these suffering children.

Accordingly, arguments for international adoption outweigh arguments against; hence,

intercountry adoption is a positive intervention.

To sum up, international adoption creates a big dilemma whether it is justified or not. It has been

argued that transnational adoption has negative effects, such as child trafficking, loss of identity

and culture, and stripping away children in less developed countries, and positive effects:

creating family with more growth opportunities to child, preventing from institutionalisation and

decreasing the number of street children. This essay outlined three arguments against

international adoption and three arguments for it, as a result from child’s perspective, which is

the main in this case, arguments for outweighed arguments against. Transnational adoption can

change life of the most defenceless, desperate, disheartened children on the earth. Children are

the future of the world, and all nations should be involved in the process of decreasing the

number of suffering children. Overall, international adoption is a good intervention and can be

ethically correct. To conclude, it is clear that by getting one thing, another would be lost, in the

context of international adoption, children get love, family, and at the same time they lose native

language and culture, although their loss is worth what they got. This paper does not cover all

aspects of international adoption, for further research there are such aspects as adoption agencies’

corruption, age of adoption and economic cost to the country of children’s origin.

9

Reference list

Convention on protection of children and co-operation in respect of intercountry adoption. 1993. http://adoption.state.gov/hague/overview.html (accessed February 9)

Dillon, S. 2003. Making legal regimes for intercountry adoption reflect human rights principles: transforming the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child with the Hague Convention on intercountry adoption. Intercountry adoption and human rights 21: 180-257. EBSCO host databases. http://search.ebscohost.com (accessed February 10, 2011)

Intercountry adoption from Hague convention and non-Hague convention countries. 2009. Child welfare information gateway. http:// www.childwelfare.gov (accessed February 10)

Katz , L. M. 1995. A modest proposal? The convention on protection of children and cooperation in respect of intercountry adoption. Emory International Law Review 9: 287. Quoted in Mezmur, 2008, 147.

Kuhl, W. 1985. When adopted children of foreign origin grow up. Osnabruck: Terre Des Hommes. Quoted in Wilkinson, 1995.

Marinus, H. 2006. The Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 2006: Adoption as intervention. Meta-analytic evidence for massive catch-up and plasticity in physical, socio-emotional, and cognitive development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(12): 1228–1245.

Martin , J. 2007. The good, the bad, and the ugly? A new way of looking at the intercountry adoption debate . U.C. Davis Journal of International Law and Policy 13, 173 – 216. Quoted in Mezmur, 2008, 145.

Mezmur, B. D. 2008. From Angelina (to Madonna) to Zoe’s Ark: what are the ‘A – Z’ lessons for intercountry adoptions in Africa? International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 23: 145–173. Oxford Journals. http://services.oxfordjournals.org/search.dtl (accessed February 26, 2011)

Selman, P. 2009. The rise and fall of intercountry adoption in the 21st century. International Social Work 52(5): 575–594. EBSCO host databases. http://search.ebscohost.com (accessed February 10, 2011)

Seugling, C.J. 2004. Toward a Comprehensive Response to the Transnational Migration of Unaccompanied Minors in the United States. VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L 37: 861- 885. Quoted in Wardle, Bruce and Clark, 2008, 116.

Street Children Statistics. 2009. Consortium for Street Children. http://www.streetchildren.org.uk/_uploads/resources/Street_Children_Stats_FINAL.pdf (accessed April 19, 2011)

10

Smolin, D. 2004. Inter Country Adoption as Child Trafficking. VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 39(2): 281-325. EBSCO host databases. http://search.ebscohost.com (accessed February 10, 2011)

UNICEF's position on Inter-country adoption. n.d. http://www.unicef.org/media/media_41118.html (accessed April 21, 2011)

UNAIDS, 2002. Children on the Brink: A Joint Report on Orphan Estimates and Program Strategies. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACP860.pdf (accessed April 20, 2011 )

Wardle, L.N., Bruce, C. and J. R. Clark. 2008. The Hague Convention on intercountry adoption and American implementing law: implications for international adoptions by gay and lesbian couples or partners. IND. INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 18(1): 115-126. EBSCO host databases. http://search.ebscohost.com (accessed February 10, 2011)

Wilkinson, H.S. 1995. Psychological process and issues in international adoption. The American Journal of Family Therapy 23(2): 173-183. EBSCO host databases. http://search.ebscohost.com (accessed February 10, 2011)

11