Introduction
There has been much debate, both written and verbal, surrounding the impact of adoption on children especially in terms of their psychological well being. The comparison between the adopted and non adopted children has been rife. A keen reflection on both literatures shows that most adoptees might as well be living within the normal family standards and they are still vulnerable to family aspects like emotional growth and behavioral patterns associated with the families they live in.
This rhetoric essay explores the ideas of the writer David M.Brodzinsky and how he argues out some of the long term impacts of adoption.
Overview and Impacts
The writer begins by highlighting the historical success of adoption of children whose parents were unable to fend for them. Brodzinsky observes that the “…literature is overwhelmingly supportive of the benefits of adoption…” (1993). By doing so, the writer immediately captures the audience’s mind that indeed the practice of adoption is generally acceptable judging from its success. Moreover, Brodzinsky asserts his point by providing the reader with some research data which shows that adopted children are a step ahead than those brought up in “institutional environments or in foster care”( Bohman 1970). In his submission, the writer expresses the possibility of adopted children being better than those who have been neglected by birth parents. This is a powerful introduction. It does not only give authority to the author but also some admiration from the target audience.
He proceeds by stating that adoption has been traditionally perceived as the best solution even for women bearing the brunt of unwanted pregnancies. Couples who cannot bear children are also beneficiaries of adoption. According to Brodzinsky, the past three decades has witnessed emerging views on the possibility of potential “psychological risks” of adoption. He attributes these varying points of views to the works of writers like Kirk David and Marshall Schechter. They are recognized as among the earliest professionals who investigated some of the hardships adoptees might be going through and how such problems could be tackled (Bohman 1970). At this point in this essay, the writer is developing an objective approach to the subject of adoption. Contrary to what he expressed in the beginning that adoption has been a success, he also triggers the other side of the issue. By so doing, he gains the support and confidence of the readers who may equally be having different views to adoption.
Throughout the whole article, the writer addresses the psychological effects associated with adoption of children. To begin with, he analyses these impacts using researched data. Some areas investigated here include studies on epidemiology, clinical analysis and personality or behavioral patterns of the adoptee. A critical look at the impacts of adoption does not just relate to psychological well being. The reader may feel that the author is narrow minded in this article because adoption would affect the adoptee in a variety of ways. Nonetheless, the author makes use of a recent study by Warren which gives a node to the fact that adoptees usually “manifest a disproportionate rate of psychological problems” (Warren 1992) more than their counterparts who live with their birth families. Brodzinsky notes that in epidemiological studies, adoptees might be poorly analyzed in respect to their mental or psychological setting. Statistics reveal that more than two per cent of children below the age of eighteen years are adopted (Mech 1973). However, the writer objects to these figures arguing that adoptees account for about five per cent of children usually treated as outpatients. His opposition to the previous data shows how authoritative he is as a writer while at the same time persuading the audience. A significant number of adoptees, according to the writer, are found in special education institutions. To support his ideas further, Brodzinsky uses some recent surveys which show that neurologically impaired children accounted for about 6.7% while 7.2% are those emotionally perturbed. When adopted and non adopted children are compared within a medical setting, research studies have shown that adoptees demonstrate extreme behavioral patterns and being out of oneself. The writer refers to this as “externalizing their behaviors”. This is a coherent way of trying to explain his point of view as supported by researched work. He appeals to readers with such an expression.
The adopted child will manifest such habits like aggressiveness, contrary view to issues, theft, overreacting, cheating, home escapes among other strange behavioral patterns.( Schechter et al. 1964). The author becomes more convincing as he enumerates several examples of symptoms of psychological disturbance. In spite of these research findings, the author avoids being subjective and explain that other researchers in the medical field have differing views over the same. They have “not found significant differences in these conduct disorders when adopted and non adopted children are compared…”( Mech 1973). Nevertheless, the writer’s attention to this matter is not diverted as he continues to observe that some adopted children usually suffer from character disorders. This may encompass keeping off from social places and character traits that are not flexible (Mech 1973). Moreover, the adoptees may also experience a higher rate of drug and substance abuse, an experience not common with non adopted children. Brodzinsky further attempts to convince the reader by asserting that adoptees may have eating disorders, inability to concentrate in academic work as well as low retention level. Again the author skillfully deviates from subjectivity and bias by elaborating that there is a vivid tendency of adopted children to demonstrate equal degree of schizophrenia or even lower than the non adopted children (Schechter et al. 1964).
In addition to this, there are those symptoms adopted children will not demonstrate. For instance, hiding or “internalizing” their behavioral characteristics like anxiety and depression. Further research statistics, according to Brozinsky, indicate that adoptees can be differentiated from non adoptees in a medical set up by analyzing the frequency of admission to healthcare. The length or duration of time they take before being discharged is important. In addition to this, there are differences in terms of how treatment is carried. Adoptees tend to undergo an extensive treatment program which is more inclined to psychological needs. Most adoptees are more likely to be admitted to a psychiatric facility than those who live with their birth parents (Rogeness et al. 1988). Adopted children again might probably have a longer hospital admission than their non adopted counterparts. In addition to these characteristics, adopted children are more likely to relate quite well with their age mates compared to healthcare providers at the hospital. Their aggressive attitude might make most of them lose patience and escape or blatantly run away from slow hospital treatment process. This is however, attributed to low level of patience resulting from psychological disturbance.
Up to this level, the writer is very thorough with well explained examples trying to distinguish between the psychological impacts adoption has on children who are adopted. He is also categorical that there exist divergent views which cannot be ignored when debating the long term impacts of adoption.
The author of this article moves ahead and analyses adopted and non adopted persons outside clinical set up. Similar to the earlier research studies, Brodzinsky, confirms that most data collected showed “increased risk of psychological and academic problems among adopted children…” Most subjects studied in clinical groupings are likely not to describe fully the adoptees needs and concerns. In general, the writer expresses major disparities between the adopted and non-adopted in terms of psychological imbalance. The adopted children usually have complicated issues to be dealt with compared to those who live with their biological families. In this case, the writer has managed to draw a very clear comparison between the psychological aspects underlying adoption. In the study of children who have not attained school age, little comparison is drawn between adopted and non adopted children in terms of “temperament, mental and motor functioning and communication development (Rogeness et al.1988). In the same vein, the writer analyses those children who are older in age, especially those approaching adolescence. They dot not exhibit any significant trait difference whether adopted or not. Older adoptees and those in pre school age are believed to be more resilient to changing family status and can easily adjust.
Conclusion
David M. Brodzinsky in his article Long term outcomes in Adoption has excellently used the ethos, pathos and logos in attempting to persuade his target audience on the impacts of adoption. In his introductory paragraph, the author clearly acknowledges the traditional success story of adoption without mincing his words. In order to capture the mind and attention of the reader, Brodzinsky highlights some documented research findings that have been carried out in the recent past as a solid proof of his idea. Moreover, the writer maintains a logical flow throughout the article by citing several research based data. Although the content of the article diverges from the opening statement, Brodzinsky manages to remain authoritative throughout the essay while at the same time maintaining a persuasive approach to the reader. Nonetheless, the writer has only dwelt on the psychological impacts of adoption and ignored other possible effects adoption might have on children
Reference
Bohman, M. (1970) Adopted children and their families: A follow-up study of adopted children, their background environment, and adjustment. Stockholm: Proprius
Brodzinsky M. D. (1993). Long term impacts of adoption. The Future of Children. 3(1): 1-14
Mech, E.V. (1973). Adoption: A policy perspective. In Review of child development research (vol. 3). B. Caldwell and H. Ricciuti, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Rogeness, G.A., Hoppe, S.K., Macedo, C.A., et al. (1988). Psychopathology in hospitalized adopted children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 27:628-31.
Schechter, M.D., Carlson, P., Simmons, J., and Work, H. (1964). Emotional problems in the adoptee. Archives in General Psychiatry 10:37-46.
Warren, S.B. (1992).Lower threshold for referral for psychiatric treatment for adopted adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 31:512-17.