Anyway

Thinking about things that are going on in my life made me change my Facebook profile picture to this:

An old friend responded by pointing me here.  Turns out that Mother Theresa did not compose the famous list of "do it anyway"s which is attributed to her.  It was composed by Kent Keith, a 19-year-old student activist at Harvard in 1968, as part of a pamphlet he wrote for aspiring student leaders.   His story is quite amazing.  Please set aside some time to read http://www.paradoxicalcommandments.com/ in its entirety.  You will not regret it.

The "Mother Teresa" version is actually somewhat modified from the original.  Here is the original version:

1. People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered. Love them anyway.
2. If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives. Do good anyway.
3. If you are successful, you win false friends and true enemies. Succeed anyway.
4. The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway.
5. Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable. Be honest and frank anyway.
6. The biggest men with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men with the smallest minds. Think big anyway.
7. People favor underdogs, but follow only top dogs. Fight for a few underdogs anyway.
8. What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight. Build anyway.
9. People really need help but may attack you if you do help them. Help people anyway.
10. Give the world the best you have and you'll get kicked in the teeth. Give the world the best you have anyway.

The "Mother Teresa" version left out the last two, and substituted the following:

You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God;It was never between you and them anyway.

When Mr. Keith became aware of this version, he wrote:

The last two lines in this "final analysis" version trouble me, because they can be read in a way that is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus, the life of Mother Teresa, and the message of the Paradoxical Commandments themselves. The statement that "it was never between you and them anyway" seems to justify giving up on, or ignoring, or discounting other people.
That is what Jesus told us we should not do. Jesus said that there are two great commandments-to love God, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. So in the final analysis, it is between you and God, but it is also between you and "them."

Of course, these 2 great commandments originated in Judaism and predated Jesus.  In fact, Keith's interpretation is very much rooted in the Jewish understanding of morality.  Morality in Judaism is always a balance between what we owe G*d and what we owe each other.  We serve G*d by acts of lovingkindness towards others, and we are commanded to love each other by seeing the image of the divine in every individual.

As we approach the High Holidays, we are reminded of this as we seek to atone for our sins.  If we have transgressed against a ritual law (desecrating the Sabbath, or eating non-kosher foods), then that is between ourselves and G*d.  We can beg forgiveness and move on, resolving to do better.  Sins against others (anything from gossip or envy to serious crimes) cannot be atoned for until the victim him/herself has forgiven the offense.  As Keith said, it is between you and G*d, but it is also between you and them.

Have a Happy New Year.... anyway!

Ableism and Disableism Part 3: Down syndrome cure/treatment/research

Part of the tension between ableism and disableism rests on the distinction between fixing the disability and fixing the person. Or, which aspects of disability should be fixed in the disabled person, and which should be fixed in society's acceptance of disability.  We see this in many disabilities:  There is a significant segment of deaf culture which rejects cochlear implants, making the statement that deafness is not a problem.  Likewise, increased wheelchair accessibility means that mobility-impaired individuals can get around.  Do some seek prostheses in order to restore the ability to walk?  Yes, but like cochlear implants, it is one option.

In the Down syndrome community, there is a similar tension.  Do we seek every possible treatment and therapy in order to "normalize" children with T21, or do we instead seek to make society more accepting and accessible to them?  With the new potential treatments/cures coming out of research laboratories, there is also the question of mucking around with people's personality in the name of such "normalization".  Intellectual disability and its treatment involve changes to the brain, an incredibly complex organ where, in fact, our personality resides.  We know with everything from ADHD to depression, psychoactive medications often have unpredictable side-effects.

I don't think it is really an "either/or".  I think that it is great that cochlear implants are available.  Many people's lives are greatly improved by them.  It is also great that many people have the option to do without them, and nonetheless live full lives.  It is great that the medical research community is looking to improve the lives of people with disabilities, and also that we work to make society more inclusive and accessible.  In fact, I believe that those two trends, far from being opposite, actually catalyze each other.  When people with disabilities are included, awareness of their needs rises, and researchers are inspired to address them.  At the same time, as various means are available to overcome the disabilities, inclusion becomes easier.

When researchers find a way to improve brain development in pseudo-Down-syndrome mice, or use stem cells to selectively disable the 3rd copy of the 21st chromosome, they are generating new options for parents of children with Trisomy 21.  Would all parents rush out to get these treatments when they become available? Of course not.  Most people are NOT early adopters of new treatments.  Some would, blazing the path for those who come after them, as we see which treatments actually improve outcomes.  Also, some parents who would otherwise opt to abort based on a prenatal diagnosis of T21, would instead carry to term and access the new treatments.

Children with Down syndrome can access physical, occupational, and speech therapy.  They can get medical and surgical treatment for heart defects and gastrointestinal issues.  They can get vision and hearing aids, as well as specialized nutrition regimens.  All of these are designed, in one way or another, to "normalize" them in ways which will make life easier.    If the new treatments assist in this goal, I am sure that many parents would pursue them eagerly.

What do you think?

Ethical Risk

After Shabbat dinner with my Israeli aunts, uncles and cousins (and assorted children), we had a lively conversation on a variety of topics, ranging from politics to child rearing, from gluten-free cooking to history and speculations about Armageddon.

One of my cousins was recounting his personal experience in the Israeli army, hunting down terrorists who were using "human shields".   That is, instead of protecting civilians from the risk of being caught in the crossfire by providing shelters away from the fighting, they shoot at the Israeli soldiers from populated civilian homes and neighborhoods, often specifically surrounding themselves with civilians. My cousin explained that any other army in the world would consider it acceptable wartime ethics to call out on a loudspeaker that all civilians should evacuate the premises, and then bomb the $#%& out of the buildings involved.  Not so the IDF. My cousin and his peers were required - by Israeli rules of engagement - to enter the buildings and pick out the targeted individuals while sparing civilians.  Mind you that these targeted terrorists are not uniformed soldiers, but guerrillas who are dressed in civilian attire (except for the automatic weapons they are carrying), and often wear masks or keffiyehs over their faces to obscure their identities.  Fighting under these circumstances inevitably results in greater Israeli casualties, but the Israeli army considers this risk worth the civilian lives which are saved - even enemy civilians!

Once again: Standard Israeli policy is that saving enemy civilian life warrants risking the lives of Israeli soldiers.

====================================

How many children with disabilities are dying of malnutrition and lack of medical care around the world, not because they have ever threatened anyone, but merely because their lives are not considered valuable by the societies into which they were born?

Is there a risk associated with adopting such children? Is there a risk associated with volunteering with organizations that seek to improve conditions in the orphanages?  Is there a risk associated with working to bring about social change, so that people with disabilities are seen as equal members of the human race?

Yes, there are risks associated with taking a stand for something.  That risk may be as mild as the foregone opportunities for personal advancement, or as severe as long-term negative impact on one's family.  Yes, these are risks, which must not be ignored!  But can they be compared to the risk an Israeli soldier assumes when he goes into battle, putting his own life on the line to protect, not just his own countrymen, but the civilians on the other side, who are (voluntarily or under duress) harboring the very terrorists he is fighting? Not even remotely!

Now I am certainly not saying that we should seek to live our lives on the level of heroism practiced by Israeli soldiers (who, after all that, are almost universally vilified as war criminals!).  But the ethical principles which drive the policy of putting vulnerable lives ahead of our own, taking on risks when we are able to in order to save those who are not able to save themselves, are ones which we can and should apply to our civilian lives.

How can we ask our soldiers to risk their lives for something that we are not even willing to risk material losses or temporary discomfort?

Disability advocacy

Anyone who is deep in the trenches of an advocacy movement - whether based on race, gender, religion, disability, or anything else - is faced daily with the question of How Much Advocacy?  When do I speak up and correct someone's offensive word usage and when do I let it go, either because the context is inappropriate or because the offender is just not worth wasting time and energy on?  When do I make an extra push to make the system work for me, and when do I just find ways around the problem?

When is the best advocacy Just Living a Normal Life?

31 for 21: Water and Fire

I suddenly realized that these two metaphors represent one of the main questions in the adoption journey: What is the vision for the adoption?

Some people are "Fire" adopters.  They learn about a country, or an individual institution, or an individual child in dire need, and are driven to rescue the neediest of them.  As the Christians say, "the least of these".  These children may have severe special needs, extreme malnutrition and neglect, and/or be older.  They may take this on because they have medical training that has prepared them for the extra care required.  They may have other children with similar special needs.  Or they may be filled with a sense of commitment and faith that bolsters them to do whatever it takes.  I certainly find these stories inspiring, and wonder if my family and my community could handle one of these.  I wonder how many people would follow that example, rather than write it off as "you're crazy" or even just "wow, I could never do that".

Then there are the "Water" adopters.  They, too, learn about the neglect suffered by children with special needs in developing countries, and are moved to take action.  But they reason, "Let's rescue a child who is still young enough and healthy enough that his/her needs will be more manageable.  Let's rescue a child before they become needy enough to require a "Fire" adopter to be saved."   The babies and toddlers I posted about recently fall into that category, as do most of the children in the 3-5 year old category and many of the 6- to 9-year-olds.  These stories are also inspiring, but in a much more low-key way.  Mostly, they are stories about adorable children being loved by their families and blossoming instead of falling further and further behind in an orphanage.  I can definitely see people in my community being open to this possibility if they saw an example of it.  These stories have a much more normal feel to them.

Which brings us to the final metaphor.

You are walking with your friends and family along the road.  On one side of the road is a lake, filled with drowning children.  On the other side, is a burning schoolhouse.  What do you do? Do you stand there paralyzed because you can't save everyone?  If not, do you run into the fire, swim into the lake, or run down the road ahead as fast as you can so you don't have to hear the cries...?


=========
Religion Connection, for those who want it:

1. We just passed Yom Kippur, when we not only repent of our sins, but we contemplate our own mortality.  We ask,

"who will live and who will die; 
who will die at his predestined time and who before his time; 
who by water and who by fire...."

 2. Proverbs 24:11-12:

If you refrain from rescuing those taken to death and those on the verge of being slain will you say, "Behold, we did not know this"? Is it not so that He Who counts hearts understands, and He Who guards your soul knows, and He will requite a man according to his deed?

A tale of two Levites

According to the Bible, Levi was the third son of the patriarch Jacob, born of his wife Leah. He was the progenitor of the tribe of Levi, which was assigned the task of taking care of the Temple and tending to the priesthood.  The priests were the descendents of the Levite Aaron, the brother of Moses.  Even after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., people kept track of membership in the Levite and Priestly classes, and they were given special roles in synagogue life, just as many synagogue rituals were created to mirror the original Temple rituals.  The identifiers are passed from father to son. For example, I know that my father is a Kohen (Priestly lineage), while my maternal grandfather was a Levite.  My husband, however, is neither.

This story is about two little girls with Down syndrome, who coincidentally are both born into Levite families.  The first is Kalanit Levy, born in Oregon in 2007.  The other is Rachel Emuna Levin, born in Jerusalem perhaps a year later.

Kalanit was the subject of a groundbreaking legal case.  Her parents sued the obstetrical center for "wrongful birth", arguing that the center had run their prenatal tests incorrectly, and had they known that the baby had Down syndrome, they would have aborted her. The parents say that they love her dearly, and simply wanted to make sure that they had the finances to give her the resources her condition would require. The case was decided in March 2012, just a few months before Kalanit's 5th birthday, and the parents were awarded $2.9 million.  I hope this will cover the psychiatric bill when Kalanit wants to know why her parents wanted to kill her.  Or when Kalanit's brothers wonder the same thing.

Rachel, on the other hand, is the subject of a groundbreaking approach to teaching children with Down syndrome.  Her parents did not do any prenatal testing, and were shocked to learn that she had the disorder.  They took it as a sign that they had a special responsibility to this child, and this sign was confirmed for them when they discovered the Feuerstein Center, located just a few minutes away from their home.  Enjoy!

More on Secular Humanism

 A thoughtful reader offered the following comments:

==========================

I think that most of my friends who are secular / atheist are committed to creating a world in which children like these are protected and cared for, by supporting economic development, fair practices, working to end poverty.

I admit that this work is more broad than taking the dramatic action of personally adopting a severely disabled child. That does not mean that their contribution to society is less valuable.

Working as a doctor who provides primary care in a suburb is also less dramatic than working as a doctor in a war zone. But suburban children need doctors too. Both are moral choices. We cannot know the ultimate reward for either choice.

I absolutely agree!  That is why I think that that kind of work must be a part of the effort.



Religion, like any ideology, is a powerful force. It can be used for good or for evil. It can motivate people to take great moral action or it can encourage people to be small, selfish, petty and judgmental. Many people use religion in both ways simultaneously -- great generosity towards others like them and great hatred of those who differ, even slightly.

I think this is true about human nature in general.  Yes, religion is a tool, like fire, or a knife, which can be used to create or to destroy.  Obviously, in trying to apply this tool to the purpose at hand, I am not condoning the abuse of the tool.  Also, the purpose of this thread is to figure out alternative strategies for those who are not comfortable wielding this particular tool.

In light of those extremes, is there really something wrong with a rational philosophy of "enjoy life, be kind to others, do no harm"? Should we prefer great good and great evil or a more balanced approach?



Sorry, but I think that this is a false dichotomy.  Of course there is nothing wrong with generic benevolence.  At the same time, I think that it is worthwhile to encourage ourselves and others to go beyond that to whatever extent is appropriate.  I don't believe that this is a zero-sum proposition -- that any good action is inevitably met with an equal and opposite (bad) action.

As Jews, we are *not* commanded to take extreme actions to support others. Give first to your own family, then to your community, then to your city, then to the world. Those who exceed this are noteworthy and admirable, but it is not the standard by which everyone is judged.

An ideal Jewish society, IMHO, is not one in which every individual person adopts one of these children. It is one in which every single one of these children receives compassionate, loving, appropriate care in their family of origin.


 True.  Where I think that the present initiative is appropriate is that the notion of "our community" has become in many ways global.  The world is far more interconnected than it once was.  We are in fact challenged to address needs that would not have made it on the radar in Biblical times.

An ideal society does not have superhuman men and women engaged in amazing feats of compassion.

Why not?  They need not be the majority, but I think that we absolutely do need "everyday heroes" that inspire us all to be our best selves.

 It is one in which public institutions and policies are guided by compassion such that every family with such a child receives the support they need.


Absolutely!  Again, I think that social action in-country is a very important component of the work.  However, I think that adoption serves 2 purposes in this.  First, it rescues the kids that are in dire straits right now, before waiting for the social change to take place.  Second, by demonstrating to society that those children are in fact wanted and valued, these adoptions can catalyze the change in attitudes that we want to bring about.


While you may find few atheists / secularists adopting special needs children, you will find many atheists looking for ways to make people's lives better through science, engineering or public policy. Engineers design wheelchairs and scientists discover new drugs and treatments. One change to a state regulation could mean the difference between a child whose parents can keep them at home and a child who is institutionalized.

These contributions are significant. They are moral actions to help better our world. Do not dismiss them because you prefer dramatic action at the individual level. Both kinds of action are needed to create tikkun olam.

I agree completely!

Secular Humanism - A friend's view

I'm trying.  Really.

A dear friend of mine is a committed, principled, moral Atheist.  I asked him for his views on special needs adoption, and how it could fit into a non-religious worldview.  We had a really good conversation, but I think it ended up raising more questions than he answered.

For example, he immediately asked, "what does religion (faith in G*d) have to do with it?"  I explained that there are scriptural and liturgical references to the way we should act in society.  I said that I am explicitly looking for non-theistic sources which could substitute.

He thought about organizations such as Unitarian Universalism, as well as "Atheist churches", which seek to provide the non-theistic functions of organized religion without the idea of faith in a supernatural being.  They hold regular communal meanings, organize around charitable causes, and create rituals around life cycle events.  I think that organizing within such movements is certainly as viable as organizing within synagogues or churches.

At the same time, the question remains of where the "moral imperative" comes from in such a framework.  I remember when I had my first child, and I wanted to recreate my childhood memories of celebrating the Jewish Sabbath.  These memories were of gathering with family at my grandparents' house, so I approached my in-laws, who lived nearby, about starting this.   They thought it was a great idea to have a regular family dinner like that, but objected that Friday evenings were quite busy for them already.  "How about Tuesday afternoons instead?" they asked.    No, what makes Shabbat special is that we make room in our lives for it, work our lives around the commandment, rather than fit in religion around our everyday lives.

My friend contributes significantly to charity.  He donates money to organizations that give it to poor families so that they can start businesses in their communities.  He explained that it seemed to him the way to have the biggest impact for the money donated.  He clearly cares about making the world a better place.  He has his own criteria for choosing how to do this.  But, like Shabbat on Tuesdays, it does not demand of him to get out of his comfort zone.

What, then, does it take to "get us out of our comfort zone"?   Without religion, where do we find a "moral imperative" to stretch ourselves to make a difference in the world?

Secular Humanism, Take 2

Let me try again.  Perhaps I am approaching this the wrong way.   After all, I don't want to convince Secular Humanists and Atheists that there is no reason for them to pursue special needs adoption.  I want to convince them that it is a good idea, even without religion.

I suppose I would probably start by showing this video.  Or perhaps this one.  Accompanied by the statistics, explaining how children born with special needs are generally neglected and malnourished, and their life expectancy is usually in the teens.

I could then link to various stories of transformation when these children, often in dismal condition, are adopted and loved unconditionally by families who are committed to seeing them as beautiful, capable, and full of potential.  Yes, most of those families would say "created in G*d's image", but it means the same thing, no..?

Would that be motivating enough?  Would that inspire someone to take on the paperwork, the expense, the unknown difficulties of adjusting to life with an adopted child with special needs?  Would a family be able to continue seeing this child as "beautiful, capable and full of potential" if the transformation is slow in coming?  If the child's health deteriorates, or she dies, would they be able to still continue and rescue other children?

Now, I know that even many "religious" families of all persuasions are held back by considerations such as these.  But it seems as though faith can be a pathway to overcoming them.  If you are not religious, what would it take to inspire you?

Secular Humanism

I was talking with my dad the other day about my project, and he asked, Why focus on the Jewish perspective in particular?  Isn't this issue of a broad human concern, that should cut across all sectarian lines?

Well, I googled "secular humanism adoption", "secular humanism orphan", and so on.  Well, surprise, surprise, not a whole lot.  I did find a charity that built a children's village in Tanzania for HIV+ orphans.   Some on-line discussions about how difficult it is to find a non-religious adoption agency, and a bunch of people venting about Pat Robertson's recent idiotic remarks about special-needs adoptions.

Well, then.

If I were to try to do a Secular Humanist version of this blog, where would I look for sources?  Most Secular Humanist thinkers focus on how we should be able to live our lives in freedom without having religious fanatics run our lives for us.  Which is true.  There are also Secular Humanist organizations which create a social context that fills in the space left by religious services.  Fair enough.  Communal services do serve a function in both the individual psyche and the social fabric.  So they get together, talk about shared values, perhaps support a food bank for the feel-good aspect of it.  I don't see Secular Humanists really putting their life on the line for anything.  They will work for causes they believe in, yes, but only up to a point. If our life on Earth is all there is, if there is no Higher Power for us to look up to, then doesn't it just boil down to "feelin' good was good enough", a la Janis Joplin?  Without the framework of religion, why would one take on the challenge of a special needs orphan?  Would one have what it takes to work a miracle, without the belief in miracles in the first place?

A Jewish Olympic Star

Many people follow the Olympics to see feats of physical greatness.  It is not often you get to see acts of moral greatness, as well.  On rare occasions, you see them both at once.

Aly Raisman is an 18-year-old gymnast who happens to live in a neighboring town to me.  I don't know her, but now I will make a point of it. 

She won the gold in the floor exercises event.  Cool, right?  She is a Jewish-American girl, and she chose the popular Jewish tune "Hava Nagila" for her routine.  And she won!  Then she took the podium and, as she accepted her medal, did what the organizers of the Olympics would not.  She remembered the 11 Israeli victims of the 1972 massacre at the Munich Olympics. 

She happens to have a younger sister the same age as one of my girls, who, like her, will be celebrating her Bat Mitzvah this year.  I can't wait to meet them!

Complex Ethical Decisions - Crisis Pregnancy

A crisis pregnancy, by definition, is a bad situation.   It is a woman who, for whatever reason, is not prepared to parent her baby-to-be.  Her choices are:
1. Get rid of it by killing it in utero (abortion)
2. Get rid of it by giving it away at birth (adoption), or
3. Raising it in non-ideal conditions, namely
3a. Single motherhood without assistance, often resulting in poverty
3b. Single motherhood with welfare or family dependence, often with no way out
3c. Trying to make a family with the father, either with or without marriage, often resulting in unstable or even abusive family life

Adoption critics argue that for many women, some form of option 3 is available, and not as bad as it appears in the moment of crisis.  A friend of mine discovered she was 5 months pregnant (!) while a sophomore in college, and chose (3c).  The father was several years older than her, addicted to alcohol and cocaine, and did not have a stable job.  They got married and their son is now a teenager, the dad has been clean and sober for years, and they are doing great!  At the same time, both birthmothers and adoptees often experience intense loss as a result of adoption, even when the adoptive family is great. 

Unfortunately, option 3 does not scale well, since most women in a crisis pregnancy are correctly assessing their ability to take care of the child. 

At the same time, over-reliance on option 2 results in excessive pressure on women to relinquish their babies even in situations which do not actually warrant it, in order to supply healthy newborns for the infertile couples who are eager to adopt them.

Over-reliance on option 1 has its own problems, even for people who support a woman's right to choose an abortion.  The PTSD experienced by many women after abortion is real, as are the medical complications which can result from repeated abortions.

In an ideal society, how would you make the best of a bad situation?

Complex Ethical Decisions - Which program?

A few days ago I considered the question of "How to decide how to allocate charity money?" on the level of adoption vs. in-country help.   Today I am struggling with a related question.  Having agreed with my husband to begin the process of a special-needs adoption (Yay!) we must decide how to proceed.

Russia:
  Pros: Many available children; Our home-study agency has a program there; Lots of available info; Travel is in shorter chunks; Russian is spoken in our community
  Cons: VERY expensive; Unstable program due to tensions between Russia and USA; Did I mention EXPENSIVE?

Ukraine:
  Pros: Easier travel than Russia in terms of distances; Great need!; Somewhat cheaper than Russia; Faster process; Russian is spoken in our community
  Cons: Can't officially pre-select a child based on photolisting; Travel takes 1-2 months!

Bulgaria:
  Pros: Easier travel than Russia in terms of distances; Need varies -- some orphanages are decent, others are abysmal; Cheaper than Russia; Easier travel in terms of number of trips, and only 1 parent has to travel
  Cons: Process is sometimes very long to referral?

Serbia:
  Pros: Much cheaper!; Much smaller country -- easier travel; Quicker referral
  Cons: Very little info before the referral; Very few children; Travel takes 3 weeks in-country for both parents

Right now we are planning to look into Serbia first.  If we can get a good match, then that would probably be the easiest to manage.  If that seems to dead-end, we would probably bite the bullet financially and go with Russia, so our agency can help us.  We were told that we can change the country once on the USCIS forms.

On the one hand, the Serbian orphans need families just as much as the Russian ones, so a cheaper, faster process would make it easier to bring one home and fulfill that need.  On the other hand, the Russian orphans are not at fault that government regulations on both sides of the pond make it so BLIPping hard to save them.  If we have the resources to help them, then why discriminate?

How do you choose which needy child(ren) to help?

Adoption vs. In-country Help - Case in Point

I just read a sad post.  A mildly handicapped older child who was warmly advocated for, who had asked for a family, has decided firmly against being adopted.  A family which had sprung into action, turning their lives around to go halfway around the world, spending and raising thousands of dollars to rescue him from a potentially miserable future, is going home alone.

Just after I have posted about the question of adoption vs. helping orphans where they are, this story brings that very question into sharp relief.  After considering his options, this 15-year-old boy feels he would rather go to a trade school and struggle through life in his own culture than start from scratch in an adoptive family in the U.S.  The parents reflect,


He will go to trade school (he says -- but I don't think he's thought about how to pay for that...) and become a cook.

 Well, how would he pay for it?  Good question!  If the people who have been handling this situation from the beginning thought out of the box about the best interest of the boy, instead of relying on a "one size fits all" solution, perhaps the money that was raised and spent in the cause of this adoption could have been used for a scholarship fund for teenaged orphans.  There is more than one way to "care for orphans in their distress".  There are times that adoption is the best, or even the only way.  There are other times when it is not.

I feel very sad for the family.  I don't think anyone did anything "wrong".  This just highlights the stakes involved in the question I asked:


How do you decide how to spend your charity money (and time and effort)?

Complex Ethical Descisions 3 - Adoption Corruption

There are children who need homes.

There are parents with loving hearts who spring into action to adopt them.

There are honest agencies and facilitators who help bring them together.

And then there are those who get in the way.  The parents who abuse their child, or "send the child back" by himself on a plane.  The agencies who list children who are not available in order to collect fees while stringing along parents who could be adopting an available child.  The child traffickers who steal children who are loved by their biological families in order to collect fees from well-intentioned parents, and cause terrible loss for all parties involved.

Several bloggers are pleading on behalf of an adoptive family in Ghana, who seem to have run afoul of the authorities.   I am certain that the parents are innocent victims.  I pray for their full success in getting home with all their children.  However, we do not know all the facts in the case.  It is possible that the 4 siblings they are adopting actually are victims of child trafficking.  It is possible that someone along the way was corrupt, and stole these children from their family, allowing these adoptive parents to think they were available.  The fact is that adoption is full of such risks, whether domestic or international.  One must go into it with open eyes, and be wary of potential corruption.  So many predators out there are trying to take advantage of starry-eyed adoptive parents!

This is not a reason no to adopt, of course!  Just as the risks of pregnancy are not a reason to not have a baby!  The risks must be assessed and accounted for, and not ignored or dismissed.

How do you pick a course of action with incomplete information?

How do you know whom to trust?

Complex Ethical Decisions 2 - Adoption vs. In-country Help

Renee is one of my favorite bloggers.  I am totally awestruck by the impact she has been able to make in just a few months for the children of Orphanage 39.  So many older children with special needs who now have families coming for them!

At the same time, I recently started thinking out of the box on this issue.  A few of these teenagers were ready to qualify for government scholarships to university studies in Ukraine, but were unable to pursue this because no Ukrainian universities are wheelchair accessible.  Hmmm.  How much does it cost to build ramps and elevators?

International adoption is expensive.  Whether you pay for it out-of-pocket or spread the cost around by fundraising, it takes alot of money to complete the process.  Multiplied by the number of kids at Orphanage 39 and elsewhere who could benefit from improving accessibility in their own country, and it really adds up!

I think that it is wonderful that these boys and girls will have new homes where they will have many opportunities opened to them in the United States.  But it will be stressful for them to learn a new language, culture, and even religion.  To break with all that is familiar to them and connect with new family and friends. In many ways, it would have been easier for them to go to a Ukrainian university if accessibility was improved.  Furthermore, installing handicapped access would benefit not only them, but many others for whom this is a major obstacle to higher education, both today and in the future.  Instead of rescuing just a few children, the money raised could be used to improve the lives of many, many more.

Another benefit to in-country help is that by enabling handicapped children to participate in their own society more fully, other people learn that the disability does not define the person.  A person can be in a wheelchair and participate in all activities with their peers.   A person with a disability can have a normal life.  What would be the impact of this on new parents of a child with special needs?  What would be the impact on the doctors who advise these new parents?

How do you decide how to spend your charity money?

Complex Ethical Decisions 1 - Proselytization

Wow, first day after I decide to do this thread and I have at least three topics.... I'll start with this.

As I said, people who think they found "the Truth" frequently decide that all other points of view are "Wrong".  Aggressive proselytization is a common manifestation of this attitude.  If you are "Right" and others are "Wrong", then you are doing them a huge favor by bringing them around to your point of view....

I saw some other bloggers linking to the Joshua Project.  This organization functions on an extremely offensive premise, namely that populations which are not Christian (by a very narrow definition, at that!) are "unreached".   If you don't think this is offensive, read this very well-written post on the subject.  The FAQ on their page addresses the question of "disagreement with the ministry" by arguing for the superiority of Christianity (by that same narrow definition).  No, all religions are not the same.  But people should be free to make their own decisions.  And if they decide not to become Christian, that does not make them unreached.

If you are a believing Christian who wants to promote your religion, can you try putting yourself in the other people's shoes?  Accept that G*d can have different relationships with different people, just like we have different relationships with each of our children.   We love all our children equally, but the relationship with the firstborn is different from the relationship with the baby.  The relationship with the child who looks like us is different than the relationship with the kid who takes after the other parent.  It's OK to be different!  We can share our perspectives without forcing them on each other.

The Jewish view on this is that "the righteous of all nations have a place in the World to Come."  You do not need to be Jewish to be good -- all people are made in the image of G*d.  The concept of Chosenness -- so often misunderstood! -- just means that Jews have a special mission in this world.  Other people may have other missions, and as long as they follow the 7 Noahide Laws, they are considered "righteous".   Going above and beyond that is great, and many gentiles do!  Righteous gentiles are very highly regarded by Jews.

How do you treat people who are good who do not worship your god?

Complex Ethical Decisions

There is a common human behavior where we become convinced of the correctness of our point of view about something. At that point it is very easy to jump from "I'm right" to "Everyone else is wrong". We see it in politics, religion, and among family members.

Adoption can be a very good thing. It can complete families, save children, and bring joy and love to many who are touched by it.

There are some who have had bad experiences in adopting. Corrupt agencies, poor preparation for the challenges involved etc. can lead to minor and major problems.

Others have had bad experiences as adoptees. Disruption, abuse, and loss of identity are prominent.

None of these is more "correct" than another. They just are. Obviousy, people will reach very different conclusions based on which group they fall into or are exposed to. I will spend a few posts exploring various positions and try to see as many sides of the issues as I can. I welcome contributions to the debate if I leave anything out (which I'm sure I will!)