Why Gallinger @ The Star's Answer Rocked!

You might have seen it by now.  The question to the ethics column of Toronto's "The Star" (found here) where the wife of an Adult Adoptee writes in and asks if her husband ought to contact his first brothers despite this first mother's wishes that he not contact them.  The adoptee seems to be caught in the battle of evils.  Which is the greater or lesser evil: let his brothers know they should consider being screened for cancer?  Or, avoid relationship conflict between himself and his mother and potentially, himself, his mother, and his brothers, whom do not know at this point that he exists.  The answer Gallinger gave was downright surprising.

But why?

Because the media does this too often, it might seem as if this is another "Mother's Rights vs. Adoptee Rights" portrayal of an issue.  And believe me when I say, I don't like it when the media does that more than anyone else does.  But I absolutely did not read it that way.  I am unaware if this gentleman is adopted or not, but his insight to how an adoptee may feel was amazing.  His comment about parents not having the right to dictate the decisions their sons and daughters make into adulthood did not seem to be to be about suggesting that all parents or all parents who have surrendered to adoption feel this way.  Rather, perhaps part of him gleaned that the adoptee felt this way about himself.

And what an insight that is, especially if this man has no connection to adoption.  The phenomena of perpetual childhood of adoption is something a lot of adoptees  deal with.  Adoption is synonymous with issues involving children.  When we're actually able to remind people that adoptees are adults too, we're still called children, viewed as children, and treated as children.  There is a concept in adoption that adoptees are never quite adult or competent enough to manage their own relationships with others.  We are constantly treated like children at just about every turn.

I like this article, not because of the specific advice that he gave because it wasn't about telling this man what to do in his dilemma, for me.  It was about treating the adoptee like a real person and like an adult.  Like any other adult, he should do what he thinks is right.  When we see a question, such as this one, asked in an advice column, we expect to see the adoptee being told "go on, be grateful, and leave well enough alone" as if the answerer typed their response imagining themselves looking down their nose at a child.  Those responses aren't about giving the asker advice as pertaining to their situation.  Those answers are about how the answerer, his or herself, feels towards adoption.  Gallinger treated the adopted person like he would have treated anyone else who would have asked a similar question.

And let me tell you, it's nice to be treated like a real person.  Because once you've let someone know you're not just a person asking a question, you're an adoptee asking a question, that isn't always the case.

Photo credit:  luigi diamonti