December 3, 2009
October 28, 2009
Heartache and Joy
Nana. During the 85 days following her diagnosis, some combination of Jon, Angela and Matthew had the privilege of spending nearly 50 days in Seattle with Nana. With much effort, Nana came down for Matthew's 3rd birthday party, held early on October 3. Her greatest regret was that she will not be here as he grows up. Two and a half weeks later, with Jon by her side reading Psalm 139, Judy passed away.
Judith was born November 27, 1944 in San Francisco, California. Practical, hardworking, and thoughtful, she especially enjoyed spending time with her family, reading historical novels, traveling throughout the U.S. and Europe, watching romantic comedies, decorating her home, and taking pleasure in her beautiful rose garden. Judy peacefully passed away at home in Lake Forest Park, Washington on October 20, 2009, surrounded by love. She was preceded in death by her father and mother, Duer and Marcella Johnson, and brother, Richard. She will be dearly missed by daughter Jill, son Jon and his wife Angela, grandson Matthew, and son Kevin and his wife Danielle.
We will miss you, Nana.
Waiting List. With our home study complete, Angela hand-delivered our dossier to AGCI on October 7. On October 13, while we were in Seattle with Judy as her health took a turn for the worse, we got the call that we are #47 on the baby girl waiting list. Our paperwork will now be sent to Ethiopia for translating and processing. In the next 8 - 10 months, we will receive our "referral" - information about the little girl who will become our daughter.
Immigration. On October 29, we travel with our neighbors, Bob and Cheri, to the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office in Yakima for an appointment to "capture [our] biometrics." (We really hope that is just code for fingerprinting.) CIS will then complete its background check on our family and approve our application for immigration/citizenship for our daughter. The only thing about this appointment that we are looking forward to is spending time with Bob and Cheri. Gas: $60. Six hours in a car with good friends, with nothing to do but talk: Priceless!
Judith was born November 27, 1944 in San Francisco, California. Practical, hardworking, and thoughtful, she especially enjoyed spending time with her family, reading historical novels, traveling throughout the U.S. and Europe, watching romantic comedies, decorating her home, and taking pleasure in her beautiful rose garden. Judy peacefully passed away at home in Lake Forest Park, Washington on October 20, 2009, surrounded by love. She was preceded in death by her father and mother, Duer and Marcella Johnson, and brother, Richard. She will be dearly missed by daughter Jill, son Jon and his wife Angela, grandson Matthew, and son Kevin and his wife Danielle.
We will miss you, Nana.
Waiting List. With our home study complete, Angela hand-delivered our dossier to AGCI on October 7. On October 13, while we were in Seattle with Judy as her health took a turn for the worse, we got the call that we are #47 on the baby girl waiting list. Our paperwork will now be sent to Ethiopia for translating and processing. In the next 8 - 10 months, we will receive our "referral" - information about the little girl who will become our daughter.
Immigration. On October 29, we travel with our neighbors, Bob and Cheri, to the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office in Yakima for an appointment to "capture [our] biometrics." (We really hope that is just code for fingerprinting.) CIS will then complete its background check on our family and approve our application for immigration/citizenship for our daughter. The only thing about this appointment that we are looking forward to is spending time with Bob and Cheri. Gas: $60. Six hours in a car with good friends, with nothing to do but talk: Priceless!
September 30, 2009
Responding to Challenges
The following challenges are a common theme in some of the comments that we have linked under "Reading List." They nevertheless caught me off guard and unprepared when they were made to me in person.
Despite the gentleness with which the views were expressed, I found myself getting defensive and struggling to find the words to respond. I resolved to better prepare for future challenges, so that I will have a "ready defense" that can be delivered calmly and thoughtfully. I will continue to hone these responses as time goes on - this will always be a work in progress.
In the end, there are many people who are critical of international adoption, and I will probably not change their minds, whatever I say. That’s okay, as long as I am satisfied that I have articulately explained my position and perhaps - just perhaps - given them another perspective.
Challenge: I think that it is better to provide families in [Ethiopia] with the resources to keep their children, instead of taking their children from them. (Bluntly, the “rich American parents stealing the poor African children” perspective.)
Response: There is absolutely a need to provide voluntary charity to assist families in every country to care for their own children. One of the reasons we selected AGCI as our agency is the in-country support that it offers expectant mothers. Such support, however, will not eliminate the need for adoptive families for Ethiopian children, any more than similar resources have eliminated the need for adoptive families for American children. We understand and treat with kindness parents in the U.S. who give their children up for adoption, and the families who adopt them (unwed teenage parents who chose adoption were recently lauded by Dr. Drew on national TV). Why should we do less for parents in Ethiopia and the families who adopt their children?
In addition to a higher rate of abandoned and voluntarily-relinquished children, there is generally a much higher rate of orphans in Ethiopia. This is not a “myth,” despite what some critics loudly proclaim. In a country that has been devastated by AIDS, the U.N. estimates that there are 10 million children in Ethiopia who have lost at least one parent.
Challenge: We should be careful judging living conditions in [Ethiopia] by Western standards.
Response: I agree that we should not judge a child's welfare by the living conditions she may have, whatever country she is in. I believe that a child is better off living in a cardboard box - whether under a bridge in Seattle or on a street corner in Addis Ababa - with a loving biological parent, than in a log home in *** with a loving adoptive family. I also believe, however, that there are parents in both the U.S. and Ethiopia who have legitimate reasons for giving up their children, and that there are parents in both the U.S. and Ethiopia who fail to provide minimal safety and care for their children. Adopting these children into loving homes, whether within their birth country or internationally, is preferable to raising these children in orphanages or leaving them on the streets. Note: 70% of children adopted internationally were previously in institutional group homes. http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/
Challenge: Adoptive children are robbed of their culture.
Response: Ethnicity should not limit a child's paramount right to a loving family. Children, regardless of where in the world they are born, do not deserve to grow up in an orphanage, nor do they deserve to be physically abused or neglected, in the name of culture or otherwise.
In parts of Ethiopia, 54% of girls are subject to painful and dangerous female "circumcision." The procedure, completed without anesthetic or antibiotics, can result in infections and hemorrhaging at the time, and complications during childbirth later. unicef.org/infobycountry/ethiopia_18246.html
Child marriages are also traditional in Ethiopia. Although illegal, child brides (some pre-puberty) are still common, and over 56% of girls are married before they reach the age of 18. npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6560441 In the U.S., we remove children from their homes and prosecute their parents when they participate in (sub)culture with similar practices.
I am not advocating removing children from their parents because of cultural practices, however reprehensible they may be. I am also not criticizing Ethiopian culture as a whole. In fact, Ethiopia has a rich culture filled with many laudable features and practices. We are excited and proud to link our family with Ethiopia. My point is simply this: leaving children to grow up in orphanages to preserve their birth culture wrongly idolizes culture and places general cultural practices ahead of an individual child’s well being.
Challenge: Everyone wants a baby from Africa these days!
Response: Some people incorrectly characterize international adoption trends as “fads.” In fact, trends can be understood in light of country conditions.
A few decades ago, many U.S. parents adopted children from Korea and Viet Nam. These countries were devastated by war that left tens of thousands of children orphaned or abandoned. Many were Amerasian, subject to prejudice and mistreatment. Requirements placed on adoptive parents were low, and timelines were accelerated.
China continues to be the #1 country for international adoptions. Its poorly funded orphanages are overflowing (because of its 1-child law) and orphanage infant mortality rates were at one time above 50%. Today, while there are countless Chinese children who need homes, the process can take over 3 years, the standards placed on adoptive parents are uncommonly high (income requirements alone disqualify many middle-class families), and the cost of an adoption is 20%+ higher than other countries, discouraging many prospective adoptive parents.
Now, adoption trends are shifting to Ethiopia and certain other African countries. Ethiopia has a relatively high number of orphaned and abandoned children, and pervasive poverty resulting in low in-country non-relative adoptions. In addition, age, income, assets, education and other adoption requirements in Ethiopia are among the least restrictive of any country. Parents who are single, overweight, under 25, have been married only a few years, have more than two children in the home, have a modest net worth, and/or have an annual income of less than $10,000 per family member may not qualify to adopt from many countries other than Ethiopia.
Challenge: [some statement that ends with] Madonna!
Response: Madonna met Mercy when she was an infant in an orphanage. After waiting [2] years, during which Madonna donated significant money to fund in-country improvement projects, Mercy was still in an orphanage. Madonna finally chose to adopt Mercy into her family, rather than watch her continue to grow up in an orphanage. Critics suggest that Madonna should give Mercy's father money to keep Mercy in his home. Mercy's father - who abandoned her mother and did not visit her once in the orphanage, even as he was appearing on national television decrying Madonna - is presumed by these critics to be a loving man who would adequately care for his daughter if only he had the resources. If this entire scenario had played out in the U.S., the critics’ responses would be very different. Why should the response change - why should assumptions and the rights of the child change - based solely on geography, cloaked in terms like “culture?”
Challenge: Mothers in [Ethiopia] are paid to give up their babies.
Response: Actually, when a mother in Ethiopia chooses adoption, the adoptive parents may not pay her living expenses or give her any kind of support or payment. Even nominal gifts must be preapproved by the adoption agency to confirm that they do not rise to the level of a payment or bribe. In contrast, when an expectant mother in the U.S. gives her baby up for adoption, the adoptive parents can pay her living and medical expenses for several months leading up to birth.
Challenge: Children are kidnapped off the streets in [Ethiopia] for adoption!
Response: Children are kidnapped off the streets in the U.S. too! Children who are kidnapped by strangers - in any country - are almost always kidnapped for illegal, immoral purposes, not otherwise legal adoptions. There are more children over the age of 2 seeking homes than there are parents seeking to adopt them. In economic terms, the "supply" of children (other than babies) outweighs the "demand." There is little incentive to kidnap children - no economic reward - unless the purpose is something other than to have the children join a loving family. Yes, there is overall a greater demand for babies, and in very rare cases babies are stolen and sold in the context of adoption. This happens in every country and is unconscionable and illegal. Most children who are available for adoption, however, are voluntarily relinquished by their parents or caregivers, are orphans, or are removed from their homes with due process. We are confident that our baby will not have been bought or kidnapped, and we will likely have an opportunity to meet her biological family.
Conclusion: Of the nearly 150 million orphans worldwide, approximately 5 million orphans are in Ethiopia. http://www.unicef.com/ In 2009, there were 12,753 international adoptions in the U.S., including 2,277 adoptions of Ethiopian children. http://www.adoption.state.gov/ Yes, there are a host of underlying issues that need to be addressed. As we've said before, however, children grow up fast - faster than the problems of the world will be solved. In the meantime, our prayer is that the number of adoptions will increase exponentially, until every child has a "forever family" regardless of the child's - or the adoptive parent's - race, ethnicity, age, culture, martial status, sexual orientation, health, wealth, politics, or religion.
Despite the gentleness with which the views were expressed, I found myself getting defensive and struggling to find the words to respond. I resolved to better prepare for future challenges, so that I will have a "ready defense" that can be delivered calmly and thoughtfully. I will continue to hone these responses as time goes on - this will always be a work in progress.
In the end, there are many people who are critical of international adoption, and I will probably not change their minds, whatever I say. That’s okay, as long as I am satisfied that I have articulately explained my position and perhaps - just perhaps - given them another perspective.
Challenge: I think that it is better to provide families in [Ethiopia] with the resources to keep their children, instead of taking their children from them. (Bluntly, the “rich American parents stealing the poor African children” perspective.)
Response: There is absolutely a need to provide voluntary charity to assist families in every country to care for their own children. One of the reasons we selected AGCI as our agency is the in-country support that it offers expectant mothers. Such support, however, will not eliminate the need for adoptive families for Ethiopian children, any more than similar resources have eliminated the need for adoptive families for American children. We understand and treat with kindness parents in the U.S. who give their children up for adoption, and the families who adopt them (unwed teenage parents who chose adoption were recently lauded by Dr. Drew on national TV). Why should we do less for parents in Ethiopia and the families who adopt their children?
In addition to a higher rate of abandoned and voluntarily-relinquished children, there is generally a much higher rate of orphans in Ethiopia. This is not a “myth,” despite what some critics loudly proclaim. In a country that has been devastated by AIDS, the U.N. estimates that there are 10 million children in Ethiopia who have lost at least one parent.
Challenge: We should be careful judging living conditions in [Ethiopia] by Western standards.
Response: I agree that we should not judge a child's welfare by the living conditions she may have, whatever country she is in. I believe that a child is better off living in a cardboard box - whether under a bridge in Seattle or on a street corner in Addis Ababa - with a loving biological parent, than in a log home in *** with a loving adoptive family. I also believe, however, that there are parents in both the U.S. and Ethiopia who have legitimate reasons for giving up their children, and that there are parents in both the U.S. and Ethiopia who fail to provide minimal safety and care for their children. Adopting these children into loving homes, whether within their birth country or internationally, is preferable to raising these children in orphanages or leaving them on the streets. Note: 70% of children adopted internationally were previously in institutional group homes. http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/
Challenge: Adoptive children are robbed of their culture.
Response: Ethnicity should not limit a child's paramount right to a loving family. Children, regardless of where in the world they are born, do not deserve to grow up in an orphanage, nor do they deserve to be physically abused or neglected, in the name of culture or otherwise.
In parts of Ethiopia, 54% of girls are subject to painful and dangerous female "circumcision." The procedure, completed without anesthetic or antibiotics, can result in infections and hemorrhaging at the time, and complications during childbirth later. unicef.org/infobycountry/ethiopia_18246.html
Child marriages are also traditional in Ethiopia. Although illegal, child brides (some pre-puberty) are still common, and over 56% of girls are married before they reach the age of 18. npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6560441 In the U.S., we remove children from their homes and prosecute their parents when they participate in (sub)culture with similar practices.
I am not advocating removing children from their parents because of cultural practices, however reprehensible they may be. I am also not criticizing Ethiopian culture as a whole. In fact, Ethiopia has a rich culture filled with many laudable features and practices. We are excited and proud to link our family with Ethiopia. My point is simply this: leaving children to grow up in orphanages to preserve their birth culture wrongly idolizes culture and places general cultural practices ahead of an individual child’s well being.
Challenge: Everyone wants a baby from Africa these days!
Response: Some people incorrectly characterize international adoption trends as “fads.” In fact, trends can be understood in light of country conditions.
A few decades ago, many U.S. parents adopted children from Korea and Viet Nam. These countries were devastated by war that left tens of thousands of children orphaned or abandoned. Many were Amerasian, subject to prejudice and mistreatment. Requirements placed on adoptive parents were low, and timelines were accelerated.
China continues to be the #1 country for international adoptions. Its poorly funded orphanages are overflowing (because of its 1-child law) and orphanage infant mortality rates were at one time above 50%. Today, while there are countless Chinese children who need homes, the process can take over 3 years, the standards placed on adoptive parents are uncommonly high (income requirements alone disqualify many middle-class families), and the cost of an adoption is 20%+ higher than other countries, discouraging many prospective adoptive parents.
Now, adoption trends are shifting to Ethiopia and certain other African countries. Ethiopia has a relatively high number of orphaned and abandoned children, and pervasive poverty resulting in low in-country non-relative adoptions. In addition, age, income, assets, education and other adoption requirements in Ethiopia are among the least restrictive of any country. Parents who are single, overweight, under 25, have been married only a few years, have more than two children in the home, have a modest net worth, and/or have an annual income of less than $10,000 per family member may not qualify to adopt from many countries other than Ethiopia.
Challenge: [some statement that ends with] Madonna!
Response: Madonna met Mercy when she was an infant in an orphanage. After waiting [2] years, during which Madonna donated significant money to fund in-country improvement projects, Mercy was still in an orphanage. Madonna finally chose to adopt Mercy into her family, rather than watch her continue to grow up in an orphanage. Critics suggest that Madonna should give Mercy's father money to keep Mercy in his home. Mercy's father - who abandoned her mother and did not visit her once in the orphanage, even as he was appearing on national television decrying Madonna - is presumed by these critics to be a loving man who would adequately care for his daughter if only he had the resources. If this entire scenario had played out in the U.S., the critics’ responses would be very different. Why should the response change - why should assumptions and the rights of the child change - based solely on geography, cloaked in terms like “culture?”
Challenge: Mothers in [Ethiopia] are paid to give up their babies.
Response: Actually, when a mother in Ethiopia chooses adoption, the adoptive parents may not pay her living expenses or give her any kind of support or payment. Even nominal gifts must be preapproved by the adoption agency to confirm that they do not rise to the level of a payment or bribe. In contrast, when an expectant mother in the U.S. gives her baby up for adoption, the adoptive parents can pay her living and medical expenses for several months leading up to birth.
Challenge: Children are kidnapped off the streets in [Ethiopia] for adoption!
Response: Children are kidnapped off the streets in the U.S. too! Children who are kidnapped by strangers - in any country - are almost always kidnapped for illegal, immoral purposes, not otherwise legal adoptions. There are more children over the age of 2 seeking homes than there are parents seeking to adopt them. In economic terms, the "supply" of children (other than babies) outweighs the "demand." There is little incentive to kidnap children - no economic reward - unless the purpose is something other than to have the children join a loving family. Yes, there is overall a greater demand for babies, and in very rare cases babies are stolen and sold in the context of adoption. This happens in every country and is unconscionable and illegal. Most children who are available for adoption, however, are voluntarily relinquished by their parents or caregivers, are orphans, or are removed from their homes with due process. We are confident that our baby will not have been bought or kidnapped, and we will likely have an opportunity to meet her biological family.
Conclusion: Of the nearly 150 million orphans worldwide, approximately 5 million orphans are in Ethiopia. http://www.unicef.com/ In 2009, there were 12,753 international adoptions in the U.S., including 2,277 adoptions of Ethiopian children. http://www.adoption.state.gov/ Yes, there are a host of underlying issues that need to be addressed. As we've said before, however, children grow up fast - faster than the problems of the world will be solved. In the meantime, our prayer is that the number of adoptions will increase exponentially, until every child has a "forever family" regardless of the child's - or the adoptive parent's - race, ethnicity, age, culture, martial status, sexual orientation, health, wealth, politics, or religion.
Ups and Downs
In the midst of our planning and excitement as we proceed with our adoption, Jon's mother Judy (Nana) was unexpectedly admitted to the hospital with AML (leukemia) on July 26. She immediately began 7-days of in-patient chemo, followed by another 3-weeks in the hospital struggling to survive the treatment. During that time, various combinations of Jon, Angela, and Matthew spent 15 days in Seattle.
First Meeting with Social Worker. In the middle of one extended Seattle visit, on August 10, we had our first appointment with the social worker assigned to prepare our home study. Rescheduling our meeting would have meant a month delay in our adoption. Because of various time challenges that we are already facing, this did not seem like a viable option. So, on August 10, we left Matthew in Seattle and drove 3 hours to meet with Barbara.
Well... we met with Barb when we finally arrived at her office. After initially exchanging E-mails with Barb to set up the meeting, Angela Mapquested directions to Barb's address. That address, complete with "Suite Number," is actually a P.O. box at a Fred Meyer. After much scrambling and frantic telephone calls, we arrived 30 minutes late. Apparently, Barb usually gives her physical address and directions during an intake telephone call that we missed out on. What would a meeting with a social worker be without a little excitement and miscommunication, after all?
After our interview with Barb, our neighbor, Cheri, and her boys met us at Red Robin with hugs and cherry crisp. That energized us for the drive back to Seattle.
Home Visit. Initially scheduled for August 26, our home visit was rescheduled. On September 2, Barb came to our home to continue our interview, meet Matthew, and generally form an opinion about our family. The night before our home visit, we learned that Judy's leukemia is not in remission and she is not a candidate for additional curative treatment. Since then, various combinations of Jon, Angela, and Matthew have spent 17 days in Seattle helping get things in order and maximizing our time with Nana.
Home Study Drafted. Barb sent us the first draft of our home study on September 19. It consists of 13 pages, of which about 8 are personal/family-specific. Our lives in a nutshell. Most importantly, it includes the statement "Jon and Angela are approved to adopt one healthy, female child up to the age of twelve months." After providing factual corrections to Barb, she sent the draft to AGCI. We are anxiously waiting for AGCI's approval of the home study so that Barb can finalize it and we can finally submit our dossier to Ethiopia.
Dossier. With the exception of the much-anticipated home study, our dossier is complete and ready to mail. It includes a letter from us to the Ethiopia Ministry of Women Affairs explaining why we want to adopt our daughter from Ethiopia and what we can offer her, along with financial information and documentation, reference letters, birth and marriage certificates, criminal background checks, and photos of our family and home.
First Meeting with Social Worker. In the middle of one extended Seattle visit, on August 10, we had our first appointment with the social worker assigned to prepare our home study. Rescheduling our meeting would have meant a month delay in our adoption. Because of various time challenges that we are already facing, this did not seem like a viable option. So, on August 10, we left Matthew in Seattle and drove 3 hours to meet with Barbara.
Well... we met with Barb when we finally arrived at her office. After initially exchanging E-mails with Barb to set up the meeting, Angela Mapquested directions to Barb's address. That address, complete with "Suite Number," is actually a P.O. box at a Fred Meyer. After much scrambling and frantic telephone calls, we arrived 30 minutes late. Apparently, Barb usually gives her physical address and directions during an intake telephone call that we missed out on. What would a meeting with a social worker be without a little excitement and miscommunication, after all?
After our interview with Barb, our neighbor, Cheri, and her boys met us at Red Robin with hugs and cherry crisp. That energized us for the drive back to Seattle.
Home Visit. Initially scheduled for August 26, our home visit was rescheduled. On September 2, Barb came to our home to continue our interview, meet Matthew, and generally form an opinion about our family. The night before our home visit, we learned that Judy's leukemia is not in remission and she is not a candidate for additional curative treatment. Since then, various combinations of Jon, Angela, and Matthew have spent 17 days in Seattle helping get things in order and maximizing our time with Nana.
Home Study Drafted. Barb sent us the first draft of our home study on September 19. It consists of 13 pages, of which about 8 are personal/family-specific. Our lives in a nutshell. Most importantly, it includes the statement "Jon and Angela are approved to adopt one healthy, female child up to the age of twelve months." After providing factual corrections to Barb, she sent the draft to AGCI. We are anxiously waiting for AGCI's approval of the home study so that Barb can finalize it and we can finally submit our dossier to Ethiopia.
Dossier. With the exception of the much-anticipated home study, our dossier is complete and ready to mail. It includes a letter from us to the Ethiopia Ministry of Women Affairs explaining why we want to adopt our daughter from Ethiopia and what we can offer her, along with financial information and documentation, reference letters, birth and marriage certificates, criminal background checks, and photos of our family and home.
August 24, 2009
Application
Our application is for a girl 0-12 months old. We are open to a baby girl who has a sibling of either sex who is younger than Matthew (3) at the time of placement. I have already started decorating the nursery. Gotta love pink!!!
August 18, 2009
Home Study
We are in the midst of our home study, the last piece of the paperwork puzzle to be completed. On August 10, we met with Barb, a social worker, for two hours in her office. On August 26, Barb will come to our home to continue the interviews. Time to clean house...
July 26, 2009
Paperwork...and More Paperwork
Over the past few weeks, we have completed over 400 pages of questionnaires, profiles, and adoption education materials and compiled most of the documents for our dossier (the packet of material that goes to Ethiopia). The dossier includes everything from birth and marriage certificates, to a letter from us explaining why we are interested in adopting from Ethiopia.
We must now spend several hours with a social worker, who will use our interviews, materials, and references from friends and family to complete a home study (a report on our family) that will become the last piece of our dossier. The home study should be completed by the end of September.
Once the home study is finished, our completed dossier will be sent to Ethiopia. 6 - 8 months later, we should receive a referral (information on the little girl who will become part of our family), and 2 - 3 months after that (about this time next year), we will be traveling to Ethiopia to bring her home!
Minor bumps in the road so far:
We must now spend several hours with a social worker, who will use our interviews, materials, and references from friends and family to complete a home study (a report on our family) that will become the last piece of our dossier. The home study should be completed by the end of September.
Once the home study is finished, our completed dossier will be sent to Ethiopia. 6 - 8 months later, we should receive a referral (information on the little girl who will become part of our family), and 2 - 3 months after that (about this time next year), we will be traveling to Ethiopia to bring her home!
Minor bumps in the road so far:
- The FBI rejected Jon's request for a criminal background check because the ink-fingerprints he had taken at the sheriff's office were inadequate. Back to the sheriff's office for Jon... (how they manage to get usable fingerprints from criminals is beyond us!)
- The state rejected our request for a certification of a notary (required as part of our dossier) because the notary's signature did not exactly match what they had on file. Back to the notary for Angela...
- Photos. Who knew it would be so difficult to get "good" photos of ourselves for our dossier (that is, photos that Angela would actually share with the outside world).
June 22, 2009
More Steps Forward!
Today we met with AGCI staff in person at their Portland, Oregon headquarters. How good it is to meet the people we will be working with face-to-face and hear their answers to our questions. So many questions!
Tonight we will join our neighbors for dinner out at an Ethiopian restaurant. For them, it is their last "homework" assignment as they finish their mandatory adoption workbook Eyes Wide Open; for us, it is the first assignment we will complete, before we even get the workbook! We are so excited to get to share the experience with their family. With Angela's selective food preferences, it is guaranteed to be a dining adventure. Hopefully, they will have diet soda on hand... culinary authenticity be darned!
Tonight we will join our neighbors for dinner out at an Ethiopian restaurant. For them, it is their last "homework" assignment as they finish their mandatory adoption workbook Eyes Wide Open; for us, it is the first assignment we will complete, before we even get the workbook! We are so excited to get to share the experience with their family. With Angela's selective food preferences, it is guaranteed to be a dining adventure. Hopefully, they will have diet soda on hand... culinary authenticity be darned!
June 20, 2009
Pondering
What does the Lord require of [us]? To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with [our] God. Micah 6:7-9
Book Commentary
There Is No Me Without You (Melissa Fay Greene)
Because I am recommending this book (see Reading List), I am compelled to briefly counter some of the conclusions drawn by the author, Melissa Fay Greene. Please take this for what it is– my personal analysis of the underlying facts– and do not let my conclusions or Greene’s conclusions deter you from experiencing the heart of this story. In the end, you may not agree with me, but at least you’ll know where I stand!
1. Greene concludes that Americans are (a) stingy (b) with Africa. In the Q&A epilogue, Greene reiterates a theme throughout her book: “We think we are big givers, we Americans, but, proportionately, our nation is at the very bottom, the very stingiest of the Western democracies sharing their wealth with Africa.” Both parts of this statement are incorrect.
(a) Americans are stingy. On the contrary, Americans are empirically among the most charitable in the world. Three out of four U.S. families donate money to charity at an average rate of 3.5 % of pre-tax household income, or 2% of U.S. GDP. 50% of Americans also volunteer their time. To head off an obvious objection, note that most of Americans’ charitable giving – about two thirds – and a majority of their volunteer time does not go to “religious” activities. Arthur C . Brooks, Who Really Cares, Basic Books, 2006, citing various sources.
Greene correctly states that the U.S. government gives less foreign aid as a percentage of GDP (less than .02%) than some other countries, but this number ignores the total giving by Americans. Americans, unlike many in the rest of the world, generally value private charity above public funding, so it is no surprise that individual giving far outpaces government aid by any measure.
“[G]iving at the private level is a foreign concept to [Europeans].” Studies ten years ago found that Americans overall give 3.5 times more than the French, 7 times more than Germans, and 14 times more than Italians. Adjusting for variables like average income and tax burden, the results barely change. Charitable giving in recent years has become so irrelevant in Europe that it is no longer evaluated. Who Really Cares, citing John Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project.
Private Charity vs. Public Aid. Like many people, Greene seems to confuse charity (which is, by definition, voluntary) with tax-based (compelled) public aid. One is not generous because one supports tax-funded programs: giving away other people’s money is easy. There may be legitimate reasons for government social programs and foreign aid– that is a discussion for another day– but personal generosity is not one of them. Yet, “[f]or many people, the desire to donate other people’s money displaces the act of giving one’s own.” Studies show that people who believe that the government is responsible for increasing income equality are substantially less likely to volunteer their time or donate their money than people who do not believe this. Who Really Cares, citing various sources.
I prefer private (voluntary) charity to public (compelled) aid for a number of reasons. First, charity is Biblical: “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. 1 Cor. 13:13. In addition to or as a subset of charity, tithing is called for broadly, including a 10% “social” tithe (Lev.27:30-33, Num. 18:20-26) and an additional 3% “poor” tithe (Deut. 14:28-29). The “social” tithe funds health, education, and welfare ministries, worship, missions, and administration of justice, while the “poor” tithe is earmarked solely for the needy.
Second, charitable organizations are more efficient, effective, and responsive than government agencies. Charitable donations experience less reduction by bureaucratic overhead and “middlemen,” including corrupt foreign officials who divert aid for their own purposes. If a charity squanders money, donors shift their support to more responsible organizations. If a government agency squanders money, tax-payers are asked to pay more to fix the problem. The effectiveness and responsiveness of non-governmental entities is even evident in anecdotal accounts throughout Greene’s book.
(b) Americans are not sharing enough with Africa. Some would say more generally that Americans are not sharing enough with the world. After all, only about 2% of U.S. charitable giving is “international,” with 98% remaining in the U.S. In fact, American charity internationally is competitive, when both foreign aid (.01 - .02% of GDP) and foreign charity (.04% of GDP) are factored together.
Indonesia 2004. Consider foreign aid to Indonesia following the 2004 tsunami disaster. Germany gave $674 million, Japan $500 million, Australia $380 million, and the U.S. $350 million. Comparing government aid alone would lead one to conclude that the U.S. did not do its part, and some publicly berated President Bush himself as being personally uncaring because of the lack of U.S. government aid. (Whether he personally donated his own money was irrelevant: he did not give away enough of his constituents' money.) Ultimately, however, Americans donated $1.5 billion, outpacing nearly every other country by any measurement, with individual, private donations outpacing government aid three-to-one, a phenomenon largely confined to the U.S. Who Really Cares, citing “Helping the Survivors,” Economist, January 8, 2005. Nevertheless, the focus remained on the amount the government pledged, and Americans as a whole were harshly criticized.
Foreign Aid Budget Presents Incomplete Picture. Focusing on the U.S. foreign aid budget in a vacuum erroneously ignores the disproportionately high level of private charity in the U.S. In addition, the U.S. foreign aid budget taken on its own may be misleading because it does not reflect significant indirect aid, nor does it account for the variety of types of aid or the wide range of motives and results.
[Foreign] aid is seldom given from motives of pure altruism, for instance it is often given as a means of supporting an ally in international politics; it may also be given with the intention of influencing the political process in the receiving nation. . . . Besides criticism of motive, aid may be criticized simply on the grounds that it is not effective: i.e., it did not do what it was intended to do or help people it was intended to help. Excerpt from Wikipedia.com, Aid, 2009.
U.N World Food Programme. To examine one specific type of aid may be anecdotally helpful. The world’s largest humanitarian agency, the U.N. World Food Programme, receives approximately 40% of its funding from the U.S. government. Of the 87 donor countries contributing $2.7 billion in 2007, the U.S. was the #1 donor, contributing $1.2 billion, or .01% of its GDP. In contrast, France, a vocal critic of U.S. aid, contributed only $32 million, or .001% of its GDP. Contributions to WFP 2007 report at wfp.org.
Value Judgments. Are some charitable purposes more important – more valuable – than others? To someone who values art and education, donating time and money to public broadcasting may be more “right” than donating to a children’s hospital. To some, relief efforts in Africa may be “better” than relief efforts in Indonesia, and Ethiopian orphans may be more “deserving” than Costa Rican orphans. (An increasing number of people seem to oppose foreign humanitarian aid altogether, instead arguing that those dollars should be allocated to domestic needs, as cuts are made across the board.) Many people criticize how U.S. foreign aid is allocated, and no two people can agree on how best to spend those dollars. That is the beauty of charity: if each person voluntarily and generously gives his time and money to the charitable purpose close to his heart, whether domestically or internationally, religious or secular, the world as a whole will be a better place. Rather than asking “what can the government do to help” and then searching the tax rolls to find “better” ways to spend other people’s money (which is neither generous nor charitable), we should ask “what can I do to help” and then search our own hearts to find “better” ways to allocate our own resources.
2. Greene blames pharmaceutical companies and U.S. patent policies. There may have been specific wrongs committed by drug companies in connection with AIDS medications in Africa; I have not researched Greene’s particular allegations in any depth. I can say with certainty, however, that some of the criticisms of the pharmaceutical industry by Greene are gravely misplaced. I start with the premise that AIDS medications are no more valuable than other life-saving and life-changing medications. Of the record number of drugs now in development in the U.S., 750 are cancer-related, over 300 are heart disease/stroke-related, nearly 100 are for Alzheimer’s/dementia, the list goes on. Accordingly, whatever justification one finds for regulating the pharmaceutical industry’s policies on AIDS medications must apply equally to all medications and across all borders. Equally tragic are the experiences of an individual dying of cancer and an individual dying of AIDS, an individual in Ethiopia who cannot afford a life-saving drug and an individual in the U.S. who cannot afford a life-saving drug.
Price-gouging or cost-averaging? For every “hit” drug that is developed, years of research and development and millions of dollars are invested in drugs that never make it to market, or make it to market and are later pulled in the face of lawsuits regarding unforeseen side effects. According to Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, U.S. pharmaceutical companies invested $65 billion in R&D in 2008, or 8 times the level of R&D investment per employee of all other manufacturing industries, according to a study by The Wharton School. The cost of a “hit” drug must, inherently, absorb the staggering costs of the “miss” drugs as well as generate profits averaged over all the “hits” and “misses.” What looks like price-gouging to one examining the cost of a single drug in a vacuum may look like legitimate pricing to another examining the overall cost of the industry.
A Recurring Theme: Value Judgments. To a person who is starving, the wheat farmer may be acting unconscionably by charging $5 a bushel. To a person who is freezing, the hotelier with empty rooms charging $200/night may be price-gouging. At the end of the day, free market capitalism remains the most efficient economic model resulting in the most productivity, and private charity remains the most efficient social aid model resulting in the most benefit. These two models, grounded in Biblical principles, have historically set the U.S. apart from the rest of the world, and practiced in conjunction with one another make the world a better place.
Patent protection. Drug companies rely on patents to protect their property. Intellectual property may be more costly than real property, and generally receives less protection. A farmer may spend $2 million to purchase a wheat farm. That farmer will own that wheat farm – generating life-sustaining food – indefinitely. His ownership does not expire in 10 or 20 years. In contrast, drug companies spend an average of $800 million to bring one new drug to market. Without worldwide patent protection giving the pharmaceutical company the time – and the right – to recoup its investment and make a profit, investment in R&D will decline and fewer new, life-saving drugs will be available to anyone.
Public research, private profits. Greene criticizes the U.S. policy that permits government-funded research to be given to for-profit drug companies, with profits shared 50/50. Overall, this is in practice a good policy. After a new drug is initially identified, it still takes many years and tens of millions of dollars to develop the drug and bring it to market. Greene herself acknowledges that the rights to the “interesting molecule” that became the anti-AIDS/HIV drug AZT were purchased by Burroughs Welcome before its impact on HIV was confirmed. How many other “interesting molecules” are purchased and amount to naught? (Other claims to AZT and challenges to the patent were resolved in favor of Burroughs Welcome by neutral judges.)
Because the U.S. government is not, and should not, be in the pharmaceutical business, 50% profit sharing for little more than an idea, with no ongoing R&D to market hard dollar investment, is appropriate. How much longer would it have taken, and how many more people would have suffered in the interim, if the government had been relied upon to bring AIDS medication to market. If drug companies then “price gouge” the new medicine, the U.S. government may earmark its 50% share of those profits to subsidize the purchase of the drugs. Better yet, private charity may be used to subsidize life-saving and life-changing medicines.
Regulation has a steep cost. We should avoid “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” or, more accurately, “splitting the baby” by adopting policies that effectively guarantee that until everyone will have the drugs, no one will have them. Put more eloquently by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health: “Any government form of price control on pharmaceuticals represents a case of killing the goose who laid the golden egg. . . . It is crystal clear that countries with price controls do not have companies that produce new, innovative drugs. The United States stands alone now as the leader in new drug production – accounting for approximately 90 percent of new medicines.”
Work to get your piece of the pie, share it, and change the world. Glaxo Welcome f/k/a/ Burroughs Welcome, the owner of the AZT patent that expired in 2005 that is harshly criticized by Greene, is part of GlaxoSmithKline, a publicly traded company. If you believe that GlaxoSmithKline or any other company is “wrongly” profitable, or if you just want to influence their practices, invest your hard-earned dollars in the company and use your investment earnings– a direct reflection of the company’s profits –and shareholder vote to “do good,” however you may define that.
*Note: GlaxoSmithKline’s stock price, reflecting their actual and expected earnings, has declined 40% over the past year. Despite the former “extravagant price tag” on AZT cited by Greene, in 2004, the year before its AZT patent expired, the value of GSK stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange increased 17%, not a particularly outrageous increase relative to other non-pharmaceutical companies, despite alleged price gouging.
Whether my paycheck or dividend check says “ACME DRUG CO.” or “ACME SCHOOL DISTRICT,” I have a personal choice to make with respect to what I do with the resources I have. I can buy AZT for one suffering person. I can love one hurting child. I can do my part to change the world.
*Note: Because my net worth is over $100,000, I am one of the wealthiest people in the world. If my net worth were over $500,000, I would be in the top 1% (I’ll be there in my lifetime, God-willing). The typical (median) person worldwide has a net worth of only $2,200. Eduardo Porter, Study Finds Wealth Inequality is Widening Worldwide, The New York Times, December 6, 2006. The average worldwide income is around $7,000/year, with the world median income at only $1,700/year. Average Income Worldwide, The Boston Globe, October 7, 2007. Because my income is over $1,700/year and my net worth is over $2,200, I may not point my finger at the “wealthy” other person (or company, or government) and cry “do more,” for he is me.
_______________________________________
Who Really Cares. America’s Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? In this provocative and controversial study of America’s giving habits, Arthur C. Brooks, a Louis A Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, shatters stereotypes about charity in America – most notably, the myth that the political Left is more compassionate than the Right. Brooks, a preeminent public policy expert, spent years researching giving trends in American, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he identifies the forces behind American charity: strong families, church attendance, earning one’s own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals – not government – offer the best solution to social problems. Beyond just showing us who the givers and non-givers in America really are today, Brooks shows why charity matters – not just to givers and to recipients but to the nation as a whole. He demonstrates conclusively that giving is crucial to our economic prosperity, as well as to our happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. Back Cover, Who Really Cares, Arthur C. Brooks, Basic Books, 2006.
Because I am recommending this book (see Reading List), I am compelled to briefly counter some of the conclusions drawn by the author, Melissa Fay Greene. Please take this for what it is– my personal analysis of the underlying facts– and do not let my conclusions or Greene’s conclusions deter you from experiencing the heart of this story. In the end, you may not agree with me, but at least you’ll know where I stand!
1. Greene concludes that Americans are (a) stingy (b) with Africa. In the Q&A epilogue, Greene reiterates a theme throughout her book: “We think we are big givers, we Americans, but, proportionately, our nation is at the very bottom, the very stingiest of the Western democracies sharing their wealth with Africa.” Both parts of this statement are incorrect.
(a) Americans are stingy. On the contrary, Americans are empirically among the most charitable in the world. Three out of four U.S. families donate money to charity at an average rate of 3.5 % of pre-tax household income, or 2% of U.S. GDP. 50% of Americans also volunteer their time. To head off an obvious objection, note that most of Americans’ charitable giving – about two thirds – and a majority of their volunteer time does not go to “religious” activities. Arthur C . Brooks, Who Really Cares, Basic Books, 2006, citing various sources.
Greene correctly states that the U.S. government gives less foreign aid as a percentage of GDP (less than .02%) than some other countries, but this number ignores the total giving by Americans. Americans, unlike many in the rest of the world, generally value private charity above public funding, so it is no surprise that individual giving far outpaces government aid by any measure.
“[G]iving at the private level is a foreign concept to [Europeans].” Studies ten years ago found that Americans overall give 3.5 times more than the French, 7 times more than Germans, and 14 times more than Italians. Adjusting for variables like average income and tax burden, the results barely change. Charitable giving in recent years has become so irrelevant in Europe that it is no longer evaluated. Who Really Cares, citing John Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project.
Private Charity vs. Public Aid. Like many people, Greene seems to confuse charity (which is, by definition, voluntary) with tax-based (compelled) public aid. One is not generous because one supports tax-funded programs: giving away other people’s money is easy. There may be legitimate reasons for government social programs and foreign aid– that is a discussion for another day– but personal generosity is not one of them. Yet, “[f]or many people, the desire to donate other people’s money displaces the act of giving one’s own.” Studies show that people who believe that the government is responsible for increasing income equality are substantially less likely to volunteer their time or donate their money than people who do not believe this. Who Really Cares, citing various sources.
I prefer private (voluntary) charity to public (compelled) aid for a number of reasons. First, charity is Biblical: “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. 1 Cor. 13:13. In addition to or as a subset of charity, tithing is called for broadly, including a 10% “social” tithe (Lev.27:30-33, Num. 18:20-26) and an additional 3% “poor” tithe (Deut. 14:28-29). The “social” tithe funds health, education, and welfare ministries, worship, missions, and administration of justice, while the “poor” tithe is earmarked solely for the needy.
Second, charitable organizations are more efficient, effective, and responsive than government agencies. Charitable donations experience less reduction by bureaucratic overhead and “middlemen,” including corrupt foreign officials who divert aid for their own purposes. If a charity squanders money, donors shift their support to more responsible organizations. If a government agency squanders money, tax-payers are asked to pay more to fix the problem. The effectiveness and responsiveness of non-governmental entities is even evident in anecdotal accounts throughout Greene’s book.
(b) Americans are not sharing enough with Africa. Some would say more generally that Americans are not sharing enough with the world. After all, only about 2% of U.S. charitable giving is “international,” with 98% remaining in the U.S. In fact, American charity internationally is competitive, when both foreign aid (.01 - .02% of GDP) and foreign charity (.04% of GDP) are factored together.
Indonesia 2004. Consider foreign aid to Indonesia following the 2004 tsunami disaster. Germany gave $674 million, Japan $500 million, Australia $380 million, and the U.S. $350 million. Comparing government aid alone would lead one to conclude that the U.S. did not do its part, and some publicly berated President Bush himself as being personally uncaring because of the lack of U.S. government aid. (Whether he personally donated his own money was irrelevant: he did not give away enough of his constituents' money.) Ultimately, however, Americans donated $1.5 billion, outpacing nearly every other country by any measurement, with individual, private donations outpacing government aid three-to-one, a phenomenon largely confined to the U.S. Who Really Cares, citing “Helping the Survivors,” Economist, January 8, 2005. Nevertheless, the focus remained on the amount the government pledged, and Americans as a whole were harshly criticized.
Foreign Aid Budget Presents Incomplete Picture. Focusing on the U.S. foreign aid budget in a vacuum erroneously ignores the disproportionately high level of private charity in the U.S. In addition, the U.S. foreign aid budget taken on its own may be misleading because it does not reflect significant indirect aid, nor does it account for the variety of types of aid or the wide range of motives and results.
[Foreign] aid is seldom given from motives of pure altruism, for instance it is often given as a means of supporting an ally in international politics; it may also be given with the intention of influencing the political process in the receiving nation. . . . Besides criticism of motive, aid may be criticized simply on the grounds that it is not effective: i.e., it did not do what it was intended to do or help people it was intended to help. Excerpt from Wikipedia.com, Aid, 2009.
U.N World Food Programme. To examine one specific type of aid may be anecdotally helpful. The world’s largest humanitarian agency, the U.N. World Food Programme, receives approximately 40% of its funding from the U.S. government. Of the 87 donor countries contributing $2.7 billion in 2007, the U.S. was the #1 donor, contributing $1.2 billion, or .01% of its GDP. In contrast, France, a vocal critic of U.S. aid, contributed only $32 million, or .001% of its GDP. Contributions to WFP 2007 report at wfp.org.
Value Judgments. Are some charitable purposes more important – more valuable – than others? To someone who values art and education, donating time and money to public broadcasting may be more “right” than donating to a children’s hospital. To some, relief efforts in Africa may be “better” than relief efforts in Indonesia, and Ethiopian orphans may be more “deserving” than Costa Rican orphans. (An increasing number of people seem to oppose foreign humanitarian aid altogether, instead arguing that those dollars should be allocated to domestic needs, as cuts are made across the board.) Many people criticize how U.S. foreign aid is allocated, and no two people can agree on how best to spend those dollars. That is the beauty of charity: if each person voluntarily and generously gives his time and money to the charitable purpose close to his heart, whether domestically or internationally, religious or secular, the world as a whole will be a better place. Rather than asking “what can the government do to help” and then searching the tax rolls to find “better” ways to spend other people’s money (which is neither generous nor charitable), we should ask “what can I do to help” and then search our own hearts to find “better” ways to allocate our own resources.
2. Greene blames pharmaceutical companies and U.S. patent policies. There may have been specific wrongs committed by drug companies in connection with AIDS medications in Africa; I have not researched Greene’s particular allegations in any depth. I can say with certainty, however, that some of the criticisms of the pharmaceutical industry by Greene are gravely misplaced. I start with the premise that AIDS medications are no more valuable than other life-saving and life-changing medications. Of the record number of drugs now in development in the U.S., 750 are cancer-related, over 300 are heart disease/stroke-related, nearly 100 are for Alzheimer’s/dementia, the list goes on. Accordingly, whatever justification one finds for regulating the pharmaceutical industry’s policies on AIDS medications must apply equally to all medications and across all borders. Equally tragic are the experiences of an individual dying of cancer and an individual dying of AIDS, an individual in Ethiopia who cannot afford a life-saving drug and an individual in the U.S. who cannot afford a life-saving drug.
Price-gouging or cost-averaging? For every “hit” drug that is developed, years of research and development and millions of dollars are invested in drugs that never make it to market, or make it to market and are later pulled in the face of lawsuits regarding unforeseen side effects. According to Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, U.S. pharmaceutical companies invested $65 billion in R&D in 2008, or 8 times the level of R&D investment per employee of all other manufacturing industries, according to a study by The Wharton School. The cost of a “hit” drug must, inherently, absorb the staggering costs of the “miss” drugs as well as generate profits averaged over all the “hits” and “misses.” What looks like price-gouging to one examining the cost of a single drug in a vacuum may look like legitimate pricing to another examining the overall cost of the industry.
A Recurring Theme: Value Judgments. To a person who is starving, the wheat farmer may be acting unconscionably by charging $5 a bushel. To a person who is freezing, the hotelier with empty rooms charging $200/night may be price-gouging. At the end of the day, free market capitalism remains the most efficient economic model resulting in the most productivity, and private charity remains the most efficient social aid model resulting in the most benefit. These two models, grounded in Biblical principles, have historically set the U.S. apart from the rest of the world, and practiced in conjunction with one another make the world a better place.
Patent protection. Drug companies rely on patents to protect their property. Intellectual property may be more costly than real property, and generally receives less protection. A farmer may spend $2 million to purchase a wheat farm. That farmer will own that wheat farm – generating life-sustaining food – indefinitely. His ownership does not expire in 10 or 20 years. In contrast, drug companies spend an average of $800 million to bring one new drug to market. Without worldwide patent protection giving the pharmaceutical company the time – and the right – to recoup its investment and make a profit, investment in R&D will decline and fewer new, life-saving drugs will be available to anyone.
Public research, private profits. Greene criticizes the U.S. policy that permits government-funded research to be given to for-profit drug companies, with profits shared 50/50. Overall, this is in practice a good policy. After a new drug is initially identified, it still takes many years and tens of millions of dollars to develop the drug and bring it to market. Greene herself acknowledges that the rights to the “interesting molecule” that became the anti-AIDS/HIV drug AZT were purchased by Burroughs Welcome before its impact on HIV was confirmed. How many other “interesting molecules” are purchased and amount to naught? (Other claims to AZT and challenges to the patent were resolved in favor of Burroughs Welcome by neutral judges.)
Because the U.S. government is not, and should not, be in the pharmaceutical business, 50% profit sharing for little more than an idea, with no ongoing R&D to market hard dollar investment, is appropriate. How much longer would it have taken, and how many more people would have suffered in the interim, if the government had been relied upon to bring AIDS medication to market. If drug companies then “price gouge” the new medicine, the U.S. government may earmark its 50% share of those profits to subsidize the purchase of the drugs. Better yet, private charity may be used to subsidize life-saving and life-changing medicines.
Regulation has a steep cost. We should avoid “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” or, more accurately, “splitting the baby” by adopting policies that effectively guarantee that until everyone will have the drugs, no one will have them. Put more eloquently by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health: “Any government form of price control on pharmaceuticals represents a case of killing the goose who laid the golden egg. . . . It is crystal clear that countries with price controls do not have companies that produce new, innovative drugs. The United States stands alone now as the leader in new drug production – accounting for approximately 90 percent of new medicines.”
Work to get your piece of the pie, share it, and change the world. Glaxo Welcome f/k/a/ Burroughs Welcome, the owner of the AZT patent that expired in 2005 that is harshly criticized by Greene, is part of GlaxoSmithKline, a publicly traded company. If you believe that GlaxoSmithKline or any other company is “wrongly” profitable, or if you just want to influence their practices, invest your hard-earned dollars in the company and use your investment earnings– a direct reflection of the company’s profits –and shareholder vote to “do good,” however you may define that.
*Note: GlaxoSmithKline’s stock price, reflecting their actual and expected earnings, has declined 40% over the past year. Despite the former “extravagant price tag” on AZT cited by Greene, in 2004, the year before its AZT patent expired, the value of GSK stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange increased 17%, not a particularly outrageous increase relative to other non-pharmaceutical companies, despite alleged price gouging.
Whether my paycheck or dividend check says “ACME DRUG CO.” or “ACME SCHOOL DISTRICT,” I have a personal choice to make with respect to what I do with the resources I have. I can buy AZT for one suffering person. I can love one hurting child. I can do my part to change the world.
*Note: Because my net worth is over $100,000, I am one of the wealthiest people in the world. If my net worth were over $500,000, I would be in the top 1% (I’ll be there in my lifetime, God-willing). The typical (median) person worldwide has a net worth of only $2,200. Eduardo Porter, Study Finds Wealth Inequality is Widening Worldwide, The New York Times, December 6, 2006. The average worldwide income is around $7,000/year, with the world median income at only $1,700/year. Average Income Worldwide, The Boston Globe, October 7, 2007. Because my income is over $1,700/year and my net worth is over $2,200, I may not point my finger at the “wealthy” other person (or company, or government) and cry “do more,” for he is me.
_______________________________________
Who Really Cares. America’s Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? In this provocative and controversial study of America’s giving habits, Arthur C. Brooks, a Louis A Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, shatters stereotypes about charity in America – most notably, the myth that the political Left is more compassionate than the Right. Brooks, a preeminent public policy expert, spent years researching giving trends in American, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he identifies the forces behind American charity: strong families, church attendance, earning one’s own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals – not government – offer the best solution to social problems. Beyond just showing us who the givers and non-givers in America really are today, Brooks shows why charity matters – not just to givers and to recipients but to the nation as a whole. He demonstrates conclusively that giving is crucial to our economic prosperity, as well as to our happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. Back Cover, Who Really Cares, Arthur C. Brooks, Basic Books, 2006.
June 13, 2009
One Child
There are both critics of and apologists for international adoption (see Reading List). In the midst of the debate, we believe that:
- Our family wants and needs a little girl, and somewhere out there a little girl wants and need us.
- Famine and poverty are like many other challenges at the individual, family, community, state, national, and global levels: funding alone will only mask the symptoms, not solve the underlying problems. If the underlying problem is not addressed , money - even given with the best of intentions - will become an enabler, not a solution.
- Children grow up quickly, far more quickly than the debate will end or systematic change will occur.
Setting Out
OUR JOURNEY BEGAN LONG BEFORE TODAY.
Adoption has always been part of our family plan. Jon’s mother was adopted domestically, Angela’s brother was adopted from Vietnam, and Jon’s parents adopted a cousin who became his sister. When we first met, Angela was writing her law school analytical paper on adoption law in China.
Because adoption played such a prominent role in each of our families, we naturally discussed growing our own family through adoption. When we wed in 1998, our plan, God-willing, was to have up to two biological children, followed by (one or more) adopted children. Initially, we thought we would start our family "in five years." Five years came...and went…and then several more years…
WHY NOW?
Call it Murphy's Law or God's Sense of Humor: after being (very!) surprised by Matthew's arrival in 2006, we have been unsuccessful in our purposeful attempts to add a second child to our family by conventional means. After 15 months of being told "no,” we finally got the hint: our second child will be "Sent From Heaven...By Way of Ethiopia!"
WHY INTERNATIONAL?
Available Care. In the U.S., most children are well cared for in family homes (permanent or foster). Over 2/3rds of all infant adoptions in the U.S. are domestic; healthy domestic infants are easily placed in good homes. Institutional orphanages, which are harmful to a child’s development even if they provide a safe and otherwise nourishing environment, are nearly non-existent in the U.S., and young children living on the street are generally accompanied by their primary caregiver. This is often not the case in third-world countries, where over 70% of orphaned and abandoned children are in institutional care facilities (aka orphanages) prior to being adopted. http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/
Other Factors. Domestic adoptions are increasingly "open," sometimes by law, other times by agreement. We are personally uncomfortable with open adoptions, although we have spoken with many adoptive parents who have had good experiences with them. In a domestic private adoption, we are also uncomfortable with competing with other prospective adoptive parents to have a stranger/birth mother choose us. Do we look good enough on paper? Are we being truthful, or presenting an idealized view of ourselves? Are we offering to pay too little, or too much, of her expenses? Is she selecting us for the right reasons? In a domestic foster care adoption, we are uncomfortable with the reasons that a child may have been removed involuntarily from his/her home: if the reasons are not severe, we would not approve of the removal, but if the reasons are severe, the child may have ongoing challenges to overcome as a result.
After a lot of thought, we have concluded that there is no right or wrong choice when it comes to adoption, just the right choice for our family. If you are led to adopt, adopt! Adopt an infant. Adopt a teenager. Adopt a healthy child. Adopt a child with special needs. Adopt a single child. Adopt siblings. Adopt domestically. Adopt internationally. Adopt with love in your heart, making the best choices that you can in prayer, and recognizing that the result - like everything else in life - may be unpredictable and unprecedented.
WHY ETHIOPIA?
Ethiopia has a rich Christian heritage. Fascinating tidbits:
- Ethiopia is the oldest independent country in Africa and one of the oldest countries in the world (over 2,000 years).
- The three colors of its flag, adopted in the late 1800’s, have been copied so much by other countries that they have become known as the Pan-African colors.
- The coffee bean, adored by my husband along with tens of millions of other coffee addicts-aka-connoisseurs, originated in Ethiopia. With its rich soil, Ethiopia continues to be the top coffee producing country in Africa.
- The country’s diverse terrain includes breathtaking waterfalls, some of the highest mountains in Africa (4,500 meters), and one of the hottest places on earth (Dallol). It also has the distinction of having the most UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Africa.3
- There are various accounts of a romantic relationship between King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, whose kingdom included what is now Ethiopia. Some believe the Song of Solomon refers to their relationship; the imperial family of Ethiopia is thought to be descendants of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.
- The Ethiopian Empire was founded by Menelik I, said to be the son of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.8
- There is credible evidence that the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia.
Ethiopia is in the midst of ongoing crises. Poverty, political conditions, and disease continue to increase the number of lost children within the country, while challenging the resources that are available to care for them.
- 94% of births do not have a skilled attendant present; 4% of women will die in childbirth.2
- The infant mortality rate is still nearly 7%.2 Of the children who survive birth, another 1 in 16 will die before their 5th birthday.2
- The total mortality rate 0(birth)- 5 years old is over 12%.2,4
- Nearly 5 million children are orphans.2 Child (5 - 14 years) labor is over 50%, as is child marriage.2
- 40% of children under 5 are moderately to severely underweight, and 50% are moderately to severely stunted.2
- Only 45% of children attend primary school2, and nearly 60% of the population is illiterate.1
- The GDP is less than $900/year/person.1
- Nearly 40% of the population is below the poverty line, living on less than $1.25/day.2
- 70% of children adopted internationally were previously living in institutional group homes (aka orphanages).6
[more stats posted July 2010 under "Different Kinds of Numbers"]
Ethiopia values children as much as we do. Some countries place political considerations ahead of their children, imposing exceptionally restrictive requirements and extended processing times on international adoption, while the children wait. Other countries place little or no requirements on adoption, at times making adoption appear to be state-sanctioned child trafficking. Ethiopia, in contrast, has reasonable requirements and timelines, consistent with the Hague Adoption Convention, that place the welfare of the children first and foremost.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, our hearts are drawn to Ethiopia.
GOD LEADS, WE FOLLOW.
August 2008. We sat down at the computer and began researching international adoption. Country conditions, stability, predictability, financial considerations, travel requirements, timelines, and other factors all led us to place Ethiopia at the top of our list of preferred countries, with no other country remotely close. On August 27, 2008, we E-mailed our country selection and initial questions to another adoptive parent for additional guidance and insight, and began to look at a calendar and discuss timing.
September 17, 2008. Angela received a telephone call from our good friend and nearest neighbor, Cheri. (Angela and Cheri had never discussed adoption.) Cheri was calling to share the news that God had recently and unexpectedly led them to seek to adopt a daughter from Ethiopia. Through tears and “OH MY GOSH!” screamed repeatedly over the phone, Angela shared our “baby steps” in the same direction. Cheri and Angela marveled at the awesomeness of His plan, to have two little girls from the other side of the world bless our families next door to each other in this tiny rural community. We often wait for God to speak, but how often does He resolve any doubts with… a phone call?
The Rogers Family:
September 18, 2008. We joined Bob and Cheri at an international adoption information session at All God’s Children International in Portland, Oregon. We had so much to talk about and share at Red Robin afterwards!
September - June. As we researched other agencies and programs, AGCI stood out as being the right agency for us: ethical, Christian, local, recommended by people we trust, experienced, right-sized, and focused on uniting families while caring for the children who wait.
A MILESTONE: June 12, 2009.
Today, we dropped our AGCI Adoption Application in the mail. We are now expecting a child with an uncertain due date. We think “It’s A Girl!” Whatever the outcome, we are confident that this is God's plan for our family.
PLEASE PRAY for us, for our daughter, for her biological family, for Ethiopia, and for all of the parents and children who are searching for each other.
-------
(1)Central Intelligence Agency - The World Factbook
(2)UNICEF
(3)Wikipedia.com, Ethiopia, citing various sources
(4)World Health Organization
(5)U.S. Department of State Office of Children’s Issues
(6)National Survey of Children’s Health
(7)Based on resources cited by the Child Welfare Information Gateway
(8)www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/learn/world-vision-ethiopia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
