(no subject)
Nov. 6th, 2010 09:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hnpccI read this article in the Age, which had the title "Potential Parents Put Through the Wringer in Attempt To Adopt A Child.
OK, sounded like a fairly standard article on the problems adoptive parents face.
Then I read the sub-heading:
"It makes no sense to set the bar higher for adoptive parents than for IVF."
Um, actually yes it does.
Adoption involves a child. A living, breathing child.
IVF? Doesn't. There is the possibility of a child, but that is not the same thing as an existing child.
"Lowering" the bar to what is required for IVF (a police check saying you have no record of offences against children and a child protection order check) for adoptive parents would certainly be one way of speeding up the adoption process, but I'm not entirely sure it would be in the best interests of the child.
"Raising" the bar to what is required for adoption (seriously invasive, including examining bank accounts, relationship, sleeping arrangements etc) for people wanting to undergo IVF would be ridiculous. About the only "benefit" would be that a whole lot of people just wouldn't bother doing either.
The main reason that adoption rates are low and IVF rates are high here are because of access - there is a very small pool of children put up for adoption, and the preference is to adopt them within their own family if possible. If you don't have a relative who's incapable of looking after their own children then the odds of you being able to internally adopt are pretty low. Which leaves external adoption which is (a) seriously expensive and (b) takes an inordinate amount of time. Oh and (c) isn't available anyway if you don't fit the middle-class, heterosexual couple bracket. IVF is still invasive, and still expensive but it's a lot cheaper and more accessible than adoption currently is.
(This of course is also leaving out the social and ethical issues of inter-country adoption, which believe me are writ large. For every "but I'm giving them a better home!" you get a "but you're destroying their links with their own country and culture!" It's not exactly an easy debate, and that's before you get into the other bullshit.)
The question of how invasive adoption processes should be; how we determine who the "best possible" parents are; whether restricting access to heterosexual couples is legal anyway (and to be honest even if Australia turned around and allowed gay couples and single people the same access as heterosexual couples tomorrow countries like China and India - where the majority of our overseas adoptions currently come from - would still refuse to allow adoption by them. Which is not to say Australia shouldn't remove the barriers. If you're going to allow them to foster, I can't see the reasoning behind prohibiting adoption) and how we determine the "best interests of the child" should not be conflated with assisted conception because they are not the same thing.
One of the comments on the article I did find perceptive though - is our focus on the "best parents" effectively setting people up to fail?
And to the other responders: what these children need is good families who receive proper support from their caseworkers. 'Perfect' parents set the bar pretty high for the adoptee and having to live up to larger-than-life role models can be devastatingly difficult. At the other end of the scale, abusive or neglectful parents would be unfair on any child. Barring these two extremes, most people - regardless of socio-economic class, marital status, sexual orientation, or minor transgressions - would make perfectly acceptable adoptive parents with the right information and support.
To be honest I agree with them. Which is not to say it's not important to try and get a good fit for the child and family. But given the amount of lip-service our culture gives to "the best interests of the child" it's pretty bloody damning that the amount of money we actually place into child protection and family support is so low. Then again, if you can fertilise an egg and carry it to term you're a fit parent! Magic! No support needed because you'll know what to do and be the best parent possible! Genetics are, after all, the only safe determinant of parenting.
OK, sounded like a fairly standard article on the problems adoptive parents face.
Then I read the sub-heading:
"It makes no sense to set the bar higher for adoptive parents than for IVF."
Um, actually yes it does.
Adoption involves a child. A living, breathing child.
IVF? Doesn't. There is the possibility of a child, but that is not the same thing as an existing child.
"Lowering" the bar to what is required for IVF (a police check saying you have no record of offences against children and a child protection order check) for adoptive parents would certainly be one way of speeding up the adoption process, but I'm not entirely sure it would be in the best interests of the child.
"Raising" the bar to what is required for adoption (seriously invasive, including examining bank accounts, relationship, sleeping arrangements etc) for people wanting to undergo IVF would be ridiculous. About the only "benefit" would be that a whole lot of people just wouldn't bother doing either.
The main reason that adoption rates are low and IVF rates are high here are because of access - there is a very small pool of children put up for adoption, and the preference is to adopt them within their own family if possible. If you don't have a relative who's incapable of looking after their own children then the odds of you being able to internally adopt are pretty low. Which leaves external adoption which is (a) seriously expensive and (b) takes an inordinate amount of time. Oh and (c) isn't available anyway if you don't fit the middle-class, heterosexual couple bracket. IVF is still invasive, and still expensive but it's a lot cheaper and more accessible than adoption currently is.
(This of course is also leaving out the social and ethical issues of inter-country adoption, which believe me are writ large. For every "but I'm giving them a better home!" you get a "but you're destroying their links with their own country and culture!" It's not exactly an easy debate, and that's before you get into the other bullshit.)
The question of how invasive adoption processes should be; how we determine who the "best possible" parents are; whether restricting access to heterosexual couples is legal anyway (and to be honest even if Australia turned around and allowed gay couples and single people the same access as heterosexual couples tomorrow countries like China and India - where the majority of our overseas adoptions currently come from - would still refuse to allow adoption by them. Which is not to say Australia shouldn't remove the barriers. If you're going to allow them to foster, I can't see the reasoning behind prohibiting adoption) and how we determine the "best interests of the child" should not be conflated with assisted conception because they are not the same thing.
One of the comments on the article I did find perceptive though - is our focus on the "best parents" effectively setting people up to fail?
And to the other responders: what these children need is good families who receive proper support from their caseworkers. 'Perfect' parents set the bar pretty high for the adoptee and having to live up to larger-than-life role models can be devastatingly difficult. At the other end of the scale, abusive or neglectful parents would be unfair on any child. Barring these two extremes, most people - regardless of socio-economic class, marital status, sexual orientation, or minor transgressions - would make perfectly acceptable adoptive parents with the right information and support.
To be honest I agree with them. Which is not to say it's not important to try and get a good fit for the child and family. But given the amount of lip-service our culture gives to "the best interests of the child" it's pretty bloody damning that the amount of money we actually place into child protection and family support is so low. Then again, if you can fertilise an egg and carry it to term you're a fit parent! Magic! No support needed because you'll know what to do and be the best parent possible! Genetics are, after all, the only safe determinant of parenting.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-11-05 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 10:34 pm (UTC)And then with no guarantees that they'll thaw effectively or anything else.
I can't wait for human cloning, it'd make life so much easier. Particularly with the external incubation thing. Heh.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-07 10:54 pm (UTC)