From Warren Kinsella's blog on the National Post:
We also talked about the latest celebrity trend, which is adopting children for use as ersatz jewellery. I offered myself on-air to Madonna as an excellent candidate for adoption, and informed her I would be happy to accept - as her loving child - a smallish mansion and a dedicated driver. I repeat that offer here to Ms. Madonna, my hoped-for Mom-to-be.
Madonna's adoption of the Malawian child is a mess. The boy was in an orphanage, but he was not an orphan. The father was unable to take care of him, but now he is saying he could feed him, and did not understand that the body was being adopted. The government is denying that, saying the father was fully informed and asked several times during the legal proceedings whether he understood the nature of the proceedings and their consequences.
I don't usually comment on the lives of the rich and famous, but as an adoptee myself, I might have something to add. I quoted Kinsella because though his offer was intended to draw a smile, like all good humour, it hides a barb. What is Madonna getting from this deal? Clearly there was a great of publicity, and publicity is the currency by which celebrities live.
Certainly adopting 46-year-old lawyer and punk music afficiando would generate a great deal of publicity. In return, all Kinsella wants is a mansion (small) and a driver.
Seems like a fair deal.
And maybe that's the problem. These celebrity adoptions sometimes seem like deals. Indeed, too many adoptions today are deals, celebrities or not. The birth mother has a say, money changes hands, contracts are signed.
Warren Kinsella is more than capable of looking after his own interests, and so would make an excellent candidate for adoption, assuming his birth mother was willing to give him up. I can only speculate that he might be more likely to be picked up by a Canadian celeb like Martin Short, thus becoming a brother to Katherine, Oliver, and Henry Short.
Of course, it's absurd, but then maybe so is all the wheeling and dealing that goes on in adoptions today, magnified when celebrities are involved.
You see, when I was adopted, things were different. A child is given up for adoption and taken away. When candidate parents are found and the adoption approved, the child is given over. There is never any contact between the birth mother and the new parents -- not even through a third party. The child's interests are guarded over by that third party, with no input from the birth mother who is already out of the picture.
Seems harsh, I suppose, but then this is isn't about the adults. It's about the child.
It's weird, but we treat organs with more sensitivity. Kailey Simmons was a young girl suffering from a liver disorder. A donor was found, a Good Samaritan named David Guest. But when Guest gave an interview to the Toronto Sun about his donation, the hospital pulled out, cancelling the donation:
A hospital spokesman said they must ensure donors are involved for altruistic reasons and remain anonymous, which ensures they have the opportunity to back out without worrying about outside influences.
In other words, if Guest had decided he could not undergo the operation after all the publicity, he would have been villified. Yet his right not to donate has to be ensured. So absolute privacy is maintained, at least until after the operation.
Don't worry -- Kailey got her liver from another donor and is doing fine.
So why is it that we keep details involving organ transplants out of the public view, but when children change hands instead of body parts, the entire process is viewed with voyeuristic glee? How much pressure did the boy's father feel? Did he know who Madonna was? Did he feel he could not back out of the process once it had begun?
I'd like to think Madonna has the boy's bests interests at heart, and that she intends to be a good mother. Kinsella calls the child just another piece of jewellry for Madonna to flash, but I'd like to think she's sincere. It would have been nice, though, if we never even learned about the adoption until after she was spotted with the child in London. A shock to eveyone. Better yet, if along with that secrecy she could have found a child that truly was alone, already without parents. I'm sure there are plenty, and not just in Africa.
Ironically, in doing so she could have used her celebrity to publicize adoption as a private affair, designed as process that ensures that the child can never feel pulled in two directions, but feel entirely at home with his or her new family.
Maybe it's not really her fault. Adoptions today seem far more public than forty years ago. But then she's Madonna -- I think if she wanted to, she could have kept it quiet and low-key. If she wanted to.
