I’ve lost count of the number of times I've been asked why couples who are going through the traumas of fertility treatment don’t adopt. It always annoys me as I think there’s a perception that there are huge numbers of small babies languishing in care because people with fertility problems would rather pay for loads of treatment than consider adopting a baby who needs a home. I hope that today’s news that last year just sixty babies were adopted in the whole of England may help explain why adoption isn’t always an option.
Apparently record numbers of children are being taken into care, but that isn’t being translated into more adoptions. It’s particularly sad that so few babies are adopted, as generally the earlier children find new parents, the more successful adoptions can be.
Apparently it can take more than three years for a child to be adopted. The fact that the average age for adoption is just under four would suggest that many of these children could have been found new families at a much earlier age. Next time I’m asked why we don’t all rush off to adopt children when we find we can’t have our own easily, I shall have some figures to quote back at hand…
1 comment:
In addition to the issues of "supply" which you address, I feel the "Why don't you just adopt?" question is flawed
in at least three additional ways...
1) ...with regard to rectitude. The questioner may mean to imply that adoption is somehow by default a more natural, right, appropriate, or preferrable option than applying medical technology or even donor gametes to have a child (or even that medical intervention or use of donor gametes is somehow wrong). The questioner may feel so for a variety of reasons, but the utterance of such a belief is not entitled to stand unchallenged as if fact. Expression of such a sentiment may signal an appropriate opening for the parties to work though an understanding each others' ethical and religious beliefs.
2) ...with regard to human nature. The question may also be asked in such a way as to undervalue the natural desire of many women to bear, birth, and suckle their own. That such a self-evidently human desire may lead a would-be mother to endure physically challenging treatments (e.g. IVF) across a stamina-draining amount of time (number of attempts) strikes me as perfectly understandable and should be afforded respect.
3) ...with regard to goals/purpose. When this question is uttered, it's speaker may intend to wave away a central difference between birth and adoption when the adoption "supply" of "ideal babies" is as lacking as you describe. Adoption of children older than infancy (or of those infants born with disease, disorder, or disability) introduces the question of the would-be parent's willingness to take on the burdens of nurturing, accomodating, and/or rehabilitating children in extraordinary conditions. This is a different goal than to procure an heir, companion in old age, and all the other reasons people choose to have and rear children. Such rehabilitation-type goals are noble; and for those would-be parents who can see their way clear to adopt children in these circumstances, more power to them. But it is equally reasonable that a would-be parent would not wish to take on the rehabilitation goal and thus choose not to adopt in such situations.
Post a Comment