Imagine if the same rules and regulations for adoptions existed for organs? Instead of advertisements saying "Adopt Fast!" they would say, "Get a New Organ Fast!" Instead of "Adoption Made Easy," they would read "Better Health Made Easy." After all, we all have two kidneys even though we only need one to live a normal healthy life. What if we could relinquish one...for a fee?
If this sounds distasteful and unethical, then why does it sound okay to do the same with a baby?
In the 1940s money began exchanging hands for newborn infants, and Adoption as we know it became an industry with its own supply and demand. The American supply of these infants dwindled after the resurgence of the Woman's Movement and the passing of Roe vs. Wade. The demand for adoptable infants has since been met through overseas babies, mimicking other market trends.
The adoption industry is subject to acting in the best interest of children. Adopted children grow up - Do Adoptee's believe their best interests have been protected? Can anyone believe it is in someone's best interest to have no information about his or her origins and no health information on their mother's side or father's side...ever.
My organ would be just fine if I decided to relinquish it. If I relinquished my kidney for adoption, it would never wonder where I was or why I gave it away. My kidney would not search me out later on, hoping to know who I am. While my health prior to the kidney's adoption would matter, my health afterwards would have no impact on the adopted kidney's future. Sealing the record of who my kidney went to would actually make sense, suppose I changed my mind and decided I needed it back for my own health reasons later on? That's a fear I can understand.
Yet despite all this, it is not legal to relinquish your organ for adoption, only your infant child.
