Exploring ethical dilemmas in development practices linked to Intercountry Adoption: An Ethiopia-Australia case study

This is an informative paper about Ethiopia adoptions.

Exploring ethical dilemmas in development practices linked to Intercountry Adoption: An Ethiopia-Australia case study by Sandi Peterson was published in Australian Journal of Adoption Vol.3, No.1. 2011.

Page 7 gives a few important statistics that I want to highlight. “This led to an increased use of institutionalised care with 21,000 children residing in 106 institutions (Chernet 2001; MoWA, FHI & UNICEF 2010, pp.21-22).”

and “It is thought that 75 percent of institutionalised children in Ethiopia have known relatives (Salaam 2004, pp.15-16).”

While there are so many children affected by HIV in Ethiopia, the adoption industry wrongly markets adoption with that high number when the actual number of children residing in institutions is exponentially less. The children that would be eligible for international adoption must come from the orphanages and most have relatives.

Ethical initiatives are discussed starting on Page 16. “Interventions can be considered within three ‘tiers’. ‘Tier one’ being supports provided to the State, rather than to individual communities or individuals, ‘tier two’ being supports to a community, and ‘tier three’ those supports aimed at families and individuals.

To decrease the risk of deliberate or inadvertent, spoken or assumed, inducement of consent of a family or institution, and to facilitate Ethiopia’s capacity as opposed to increasing dependency on ICA, this paper suggests developmental aid is best facilitated though tiers one and two.

These interventions positively influence family preservation through addressing broader issues causing vulnerability.”

Furthermore on Page 18, Tier 3 supports emphasize programs NOT linked to intercountry adoption.

“Tier 3: individual supports: Support for families and individuals are vital, but it is suggested these are best done through programs not linked to ICA. Initiatives include:

· Micro-finance programs

· Social welfare schemes (child sponsorships, education support and food vouchers)

· Home visiting and parenting support where parents are sick

· Family reunification programs

· Provision of support for families caring for orphaned and vulnerable children.”

REFORM Puzzle Piece

This paper also concludes that how money is used in international adoption is where reform should be focused.