The post itself and much of the ensuing discussion struck me as a serious case of not seeing the forest for the trees. The author states:
I believe that one case of corruption is one too many. What about balancing these stories with some of the other international adoption stories?
In my opinion, this logic is flawed. It's like saying "One murder is one too many, so let's balance it out with a few stories about people who didn't get killed." Yet it's the same argument I often see when the subject of intercountry adoption corruption comes up in adoptive parent circles.
There is, in my opinion, no other response for an adoptive parent to make to allegations of the existence of intercountry adoption corruption than to agree. We then have a further responsibility to get under what that means, learn to recognize it, speak out against it, and understand our role in it. This neither diminishes our families nor undermines ethical transnational adoptions.
It would do my heart good if one day an article like Graff's could be met by adoptive parents with praise first of all for shedding light on this problem, followed by reasoned critique and dialog on how we collectively can bring intercountry adoption corruption to an end.
The Lie We Love
Brandeis University's Shuster Institute Gender and Justice Project on Adoption
Ethica articles on intercountry adoption corruption