Who benefits from celebrity adoptions?

Last Friday, infamous pop star Madonna, flew out of Malawi with her 13-month old adopted son. Malawian law, which prohibits adoption by non-residents, was even wavered in Madonna's case, and allowed her finalize the procedure. Even though Madonna’s adoption might save the life of a child otherwise trapped in a society ravaged by AIDS and malnutrition, there have been concerns that celebrity adoption is not in the child’s best interest. If it weren’t for the adoption agency, Madonna’s son, Banda, would have probably died after his mother passed away. Even though adoption is seen as a positive situation, there are negative effects that the child could possibly suffer from.

Adoption by celebrities is simply another example of the powers of uncontrolled celebrity egos in an age in which rock stars are considered authorities on global poverty and Hollywood actors are invited to address the United Nations on humanitarian crises. Regardless of the motives of their adoptive parents, a child picked up from a developing country and dropped straight into the inevitable media spotlight becomes an unwitting poster child for poverty. Celebrities are not ordinary people, who do not live ordinary lives, thus effecting the child’s upbringing and morality.

Celebrities somehow see adoption as selling property. Celebrities are industry individuals driven by profit and see they are doing a good thing rather than the interests of the children involved. Analysts have claimed that the best place for a child is in their home country, where they are not exposed to an extraordinary lifestyle.

Do you think celebrities should be allowed to adopt from foreign countries? Is it in the child’s best interest?