Do you think our words are heard?

I think that some adoptive parents listen and others don't want to. For example, I heard from a close friend who'd adopted 2 children and also gave birth to a 3rd say that for her, it's extremely difficult to acknowledge that her children bear so much pain. She'd said that she feels incredibly helpless. Still, she does acknowledge her children's pain and talks with them about their feelings of being adopted. And I have another friend who'd adopted a child and prior to her adopting the child, I had been very candid with my friend about my feelings of loss/grief regarding my adoption. Although at the time she was very genuine about wanting to acknowledge adoption-related grief, now that she is an adoptive mother, I can tell that she's in total denial of her child's pain. In Australia, I have also heard from other adoptees who participate in adoption education sessions for prospective adoptive parents say that many adoptive parents are open to hearing from adoptees about their experiences. However, there are also many adoptive parents who just prefer not to hear about the possible 'down sides' of adoption. And in the international adoption advocacy debates in Australia, many of the adoptive parent groups focus on the 'hurry up and get the kids placed' and VERY little discussion about the need for post-adoption support services. I'm of the belief that part of the problem may have to do with the adoption agencies that downplay the possible challenges that adoptive parents may face. From a lot of the questions I read from adoptive parents, particularly in the international adoption forums, I get the impression that very few of them have much preparation about what the challenges may be post-adoption. I'm also of the belief that, in general, a lot of people just don't want to face up to the fact that there may be challenges, whether they be adoption-related or not. Just look at some non-adopting couples during the pregnancy period - some people are very enthusiastic about learning about parenting, others take a more non-challant, 'whatever' approach. And just look at people about to get married - like, who really wants to consider the possibility of all the post-marital challenges? Many people just prefer to remain in denial since it's somehow easier to pretend that there's nothing the matter. For many, facing up to pain and difficulties (their's or other's) is just too plain hard. Remaining in fantasy is a very compelling thing.

"I'm of the belief that part of the problem may have to do with the adoption agencies that downplay the possible challenges that adoptive parents may face. From a lot of the questions I read from adoptive parents, particularly in the international adoption forums, I get the impression that very few of them have much preparation about what the challenges may be post-adoption."That is so true. Until I started reading here, I was not exposed to the idea that even people adopted as infants would feel grief and loss even with great parenting. I had talked to an adopted friend, friends that had adopted, and I read everything I was told to read during our PRIDE classes. I thought I had a pretty good education, but none of the classes taught us the things I have learned here by paying attention to what everyone, from all sides, has to say. My boys will greatly benefit. There will always be people in denial or people who don't think that "their kids" could ever have to deal with these feelings, but I think that most adoptive parents are happier with honesty and reality.

Hopefulfor1more, I think adoption agencies need to always try to update their processes and to have that in their mandate to do on a regularly scheduled basis. I also think potential adoptive parents need to be aware of all facets of adoption and not simply buy into what a for profit agency says because like it or not they do have a bias. The company may try to overcome the bias but the ultimate reason for being in any business is to generate profit so a fine line may or may not be crossed in how they present the facts. Some companies may do a better job than others of teaching all the facets of adoption. Truthfully, people simply need to look at the information and then do their own research before buying into something that is so called 'accepted practice'. People need to do this in all facets of their lives...take everything with a grain of salt until you have a well rounded understanding of the issue from all viewpoints. Moms and dads tell their kids 'if Tommy jumped off a cliff would you jump too?' for a really good reason - understand the ramifications before you commit to something. Sadly, alot of people coming to adoption are at the point where they have waited so long to have a family that they may not be in the mindset of taking a step back and question things more deeply. They may also avoid the tough questions to ask because they are also under a microscope to be approved to adopt. It is one of those no win situations where you are afraid to have a dissenting voice. All in all I am glad I started this thread and am not here to be a negative voice, simply a realistic voice of potential issues that may or may not become part of any families reality, simply because we are all individuals and face different things. One thing I will always be vocal about is that closed/sealed records of an adopted child should be opened when they become an adult, and that medical history should always be provided and updated from the birth families and from the adoptee back to the birth families. There is no discussion that will ever change my mind on those two issues. Kind regards,Dickons

I think that it's our society and our legislators that need to listen to adoptees. They need to open records for us as adults. Our discussions about adoptee rights need to fall on the ears of those in power to change the laws, not just discussion within the triad.

I agree. And given that adopted people comprise approximately 6M to 8M people in the USA, and given that the current USA population is 306M, that means that adopted people comprise approximately 2% of the USA population. Add this number with the number of adoptive parents and you have a very strong lobby group.On the issue of access to medical histories, I would also anticipate that a lot of people within the medical profession would also be in favor of adopted people having access to their medical records. Like, what doctor wouldn't be glad to have a more complete picture of their patients when dealing with serious diseases - eg. leukemia.I think that if the rights to medical records is characterised as a public health issue, we'd get a lot of support, particularly given the skyrocketing costs of medical care. Imagine how many $$ would be saved in medical tests alone if adopted people knew their medical histories. Come to think of it, I imagine that the health insurance companies would also be very supportive of adoptees having access to medical histories - more $$ to be saved by the insurance companies since they foot a large part of the bills for congenital diseases. And I also imagine that the various healthcare not-for-profit groups, eg. cancer societies, leukemia foundations, etc; would be supportive of adoptee access to medical histories.A key question is: just how many adopted people end up with congenital diseases? (A bit hard to determine since those of us who end up with serious illnesses may not know if it's hereditary or not).

Hey I noticed BethVA62's avatar about the National Adoptee Rights Day on July 21, 2009 in Philadelphia. There's also a web site with details about how to support this campaign - adopteerights.net

Ripples, The majority of non-infectious disease are probably hereditary. I say this because there are clearly defined ways a disease can be inheritied and some seem to always be passed and others require the right genes from both parents versus only one side, and some diseases hit every other generation or sporadic. Science is evolving at an extremely high pace and the genetic insight they are gaining will put to rest these debates and it will become fact that our history must be provided to ensure health. There is a reason why the government has made it easy to create a family health history and to have the data electronically so that doctors have the tools to define the diagnosis from all the facts. You are very correct in that the insurance companies would benefit from adoptees obtaining their health information, I wonder if they have even thought to think about it. Although that would open another can of worms requiring answers on insurance forms related to being adopted etc...and the possible outcome for adoptees without history may be denied insurance although I would expect that rules would be put into place but... My disease is one of those that they believe has a genetic basis but they have not found the gene or genes related but they will. The evidence is to overwhelming to deny. From what they thought was hereditary 50 years ago to what they know now is night and day. Give the scientists another 10-20 years and we will have concrete facts that cannot be denied. Kind regards,Dickons

I do know first hand about the need for medical records. I was adopted at birth and no info was turned over (1969) in the late 90s I was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension then in 2004 went into CHF. The blood vessels in my lungs are scarring/thicking due to the increase pressures. It is also causing problems with my liver and spleen. Because of not having any medical info I had to undergo alot of testing and many times over. I was told by my Dr. that he wished he knew heart disease ran in the family (I found my b/mom in 04 and learned about this..another long story that is very sad). It would have provided a clearer picture of what testing if any that needed to be done and possably would have resulted in an earlier diagnosis and treatment. Who knows if it would have the past is over and done with. My b/mom does not remember who the b/dad is so I may never get info on his side. What I am dealing with is considered terminal and my lungs are going fast. I now do not even want to have anymore tests done because I do not want to know if anything else is wrong. I completly understand b/parents want privacy ect. but I really think that all b/parents should be required to turn over medical histories. Any info such as Dr. names, b/parents names/bdates ect can be blacked out if needed. Adoptees already have so many questions like who do I look like, why was I given up ect. but wondering if we need to be worried about serious illnesses should not not be one of those questions.

The problem with medical histories from a birthmother's viewpoint is that at the actual time of relinquishment, medical problems may have not arisen yet, simply due to her being young. I wish that updated medical histories were required at regular intervals, and in between those time periods if a serious illness arises.When I placed my son for adoption, I was 17 years old, physically fit and very healthy. Both of his grandparents were only in their 30's when he was born, so the family medical history I supplied the adoption agency didn't contain much. However, that changed drastically as the years went by. Fortunately, I was able to keep the agency updated on a regular basis (they have an awesome post-adoptions unit).My son and I reunited years ago, and there have already been a couple of instances where his physicians have started proactive treatment on a preventative basis solely because of my own medical history. For example, he was started on the statin drugs in his early 30s (cholesterol meds) even though his LDL and triglyceride levels were fine. He has the same extremely low HDL levels ("good" cholesterol") that I have, a factor that doctors believe is responsible for the early heart disease that runs in my father's bloodline. Most doctors, however, won't place a younger patient on the statins if his LDL isn't abnormally high...unless there is a history of cardiovascular disease and low HDL levels in the family.Medical history is invaluable, and I believe it is absolutely necessary for preventative care. And as the previous poster pointed out, it can help ensure early diagnosis, as well as protect a patient from having too many unneccessary diagnostic tests.

I agree with you ravensong except for one thing. You said that there may not be anything wrong with the birthparents, but b/parents have parents, other relatives ect. My b/mom claims to be healthy,however, her mother and grandmother died early from heart problems. I have been asked many times by Drs. if there is a history of illness in my immediate family parents, grandparents, ect. Some illnesses skip generations ,so while the b/m is healthy, knowing what medical issues the that effect other relatives is also needed. One example for instance. Breast cancer tends to be heritary. While the birthmom my not have breast cancer it is possable that a close relative had it. preventative screenings and poss catching anything before things get out of control. It could be poss. to assume that the b/m and b/d do have everything wrong medically and to test for everything or moniter and give prescritions "just in case" unfortionally insurance does not pay for that and the tests can be expenisive at least in more cases then not.The fact that my b/grandmother and b/greatgrandmother had serious health issues. Even if that had been handed over we would at least have a jumping off point to understand what was going on w/me health wise. If health issues come in the b/m and b/f after the adoption then there should be a way for them to tell the agency. maybe a form that can filled out w/ updates. I try to tell myself that not knowing was easier..except I have hard time believing myself. Its funny in a way, this not knowing, but you do not know how many times symptoms like chest pain, shortness of breath ect were not taken seriously and I am made to feel like I was actually crazy or the symptoms are not important and or overlooked. In my opinion any info is better then no info.

Jentweedy, I think you either misunderstood me or I didn't make myself very clear. I absolutely agree with you 100 percent that a complete family medical history, including that of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and siblings, is necessary. What I was trying to say, and didn't do a very good job of saying it, was that both my parents (my son's grandparents) were only in their mid-30's when he was born. Neither of my parents had any health problems of any sort at that time, simply because they were still young. So when I filled out my medical history (including that of my parents and siblings) for the adoption agency, there wasn't much to put down on paper. But that drastically changed over the next 20 years, especially when my parents hit middle age. That's why I believe there should be some way of requiring that birth parents supply an updated medical history at regular intervals throughout the years following an adoption. A lot of agencies would probably balk at that, since they don't seem to be really interested in playing the "middle man". I don't know how it would be handled, but I think it's important for the medical histories to be updated, and not just rely on the medical history that was supplied at the time of relinquishment. Sorry for being unclear on my previous post. :p

I agree with you 100%, however, I just don't see how anything like this could be enforced. I was able to keep my medical history updated (what I know of it) for my entire side of the family because I had a semi-open and my agency was fine with being an intermediary (they have excellent post-adoption services). But for those not in semi open, or those that do not follow through, there is unfortunately no way you can force them to tell. And even if you could force them, what's to say they will give the whole truth? A lot of people are in denial about certain medical issues, a lot have problems that they don't see the doc about, and a lot of people keep medical concerns to themselves, not wanting to worry other family members. Even in my own family, I don't know the full medical history of everyone but for what I do know, the conditions that run in my family can be greatly reduced or prevented by the lifestyle choices I make. I also find that even the docs knowing some of my history, they still don't take me seriously if I have certain symptoms. That has a lot to do with the way women are treated among a lot of medical professionals, even today. If anyone is not being taken seriously, whether medical history is present or not, they should definitely go elsewhere for treatment.

I think there are many who adopt are willing to see things from new perspectives and try hard to open thier world to not just bringing in a new child into their family but a new world just as the child would be doing themselves. I may be wrong in this, but I believe some of it plays into 'when you were adopted'. I was adopted in the late '70s. I was around 7 years old. Adopted from Korea. Back then, a lot of people thought they were 'saving' us by adopting from Korea. The idea of asimulating/blending was I believe very popular thought. So, the times you live in can effect how people view adoption and how they will raise them. Our 'culture' is a big influence on how 'we' think...so maybe, in one way, this might answer your question. Why people who adopt will not try to understand their childrens need for identity and background. I think in general, people adopting now have more open view on adoption issues. Many try to understand the effects of adoption prior to adopting and try to ackneldge both worlds once adopt. I think it is wonderful! And even with all this they do...does mean their child won't feel displaced or abandoned but I think it will give the child more love and security...which is I believe what 'we' all want. -KyungMee at [url=http://homeiswithin.blogspot.com]Korean American Adoptee Home Is Within[/url]

I never disregard the feelings of either adoptees or birthparents. I have found so much information here from both groups. If even one person learns something and has an easier road in life, you have been successful.

But why? She has no information to suggest that he is biracial. She is thinking that only because of the way he looks. Even she admits that AA's come in all colors and hair textures. The child comes from a black mother who says all possible fathers are black.