How does your exit strategy work?Until the time comes when systemic changes are implemented in sending countries, and international adoption is no longer allowed (used?), how are “orphans” to be cared for?
I think the way this question is framed reflects the way in which the majority of people think in terms of either/or dichotomies.
DOOMSDAY SCENARIOS vs. RATIONAL EXIT PLANS
International adoption (IA) is thought of as a safety net for orphans, and to end it the assumption is that orphans will be cut off without resources; left stranded to “waste away” in orphanages.
However, that is putting the cart before the horse. Systemic changes should not wait until IA is removed. Systemic changes are introduced IN CONCERT to complement each and every reduction to IA or PRIOR TO the complete dissolution of IA.
INVESTING IN PEOPLE VS. ROBBING THEM
When IA is promoted as the first option, the result in the source countries is devastating loss and rupture of the social fabric. International adoption further destabilizes vulnerable countries. The truly charitable thing and right-minded approach to helping source countries is to STRENGTHEN those countries and empower their citizens. Strengthening services to preserve existing families and providing real choices and options to women so adoption is truly the last resort is the REAL safety net that source countries need to keep their human resources.
NOT STRANDED ANY MORE THAN WITH IA
I’d also like to point out that most children in orphanages the world over are not babies. IA reflects the world market for babies, and its continuation or dissolution has little net effect on the fate of orphans living in institutions, though increasing social services would reduce the number of orphans created and also improve the lives of those already there. So to answer your question directly, there would be either no change or an improvement for children in orphanages, and the time for systemic changes would be long before the last baby had to board an airplane.
IA — NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION
The fear-mongering of those against the dissolution of IA is unfounded and based upon the idea that IA is the only viable solution to the problem of orphans. This is an easy position to take as social programs are rendered unnecessary in the presence of the adoption solution. Other viable options have not been explored or offered as alternative solutions and are not even considered because they don’t deliver babies to foreigners.
FIRST, THE VACUUM NEEDS TO BE TURNED OFF
There are many systemic changes that can be implemented immediately and gradually strengthened as IA is phased out. But it takes a moratorium and an end date, because as long as IA exists in perpetuity, a vacuum of power and money go towards its perpetuation and not to families who need assistance to persevere.
This sounds like a question that is a variation of “Would you have rather grown up in an orphanage?” or “Would you rather orphans languish away in institutions?” I’m not trying to be sassy or mean, and I understand that the question actually addresses very real, practical concerns. But, look, folks, we’ve got to get out of this dichotomous/either-or mindset as girl4708 stated.
People need to do their research and understand the alternative options to International Adoption that have existed for decades but are not implemented or developed because of the detrimental and stunting mindset that the only two options are either languishing in an orphanage or being adopted to foreigners.
If you really want to consider the answers to the above question, please read the report put out by Better Care Network, “Families, Not Orphanages,” and then I think you’ll have a better grasp of the very, real practical solutions available: Better Care Network
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar