misguided money

You must've heard about Madonna's wanting to adopt a new child, yes?

A dear friend of mine pointed out something to me. I have to admit that I hadn't given it much thought because as a rule, I try not to concern myself with the goings on of the rich and famous.

As you know, she is in the process of completing the adoption process of a Malawian boy hat she "found" in an orphanage in the area. On the face of it, this is a noble thing to do; essentially wanting to save the life of a child.
But what about the rest of it?
Firstly, the whole thing might not even be legitimate as there are strict rules that must be followed and conditions that have to be met before a possible parent is granted the permission for the adoption.
Are we supposed to ignore the rules and in some instances LAWS because she is Madonna?
Don't forget that this child isn't without family as his father is still alive.
Ahhhh..... But they say that the child will only be in the Uk with Madonna for a few years and will eventually go home.
Right.
Take a child out of a poor country to live in London (and where-ever else Madonna chooses to live...) for a few years and then at a later age, when the child has grown up to be a healthy individual he can go home back to his family. Can you see that happening?
Now I might be a bit cynical but somehow, I find it hard to believe that a child that is brought up in luxury afforded by Madonna is likely to be willing to go back to Malawi after X number of years.

Is this even the right thing to do?

For a long time, I always wondered why the incredibly rich didn't just give a huge amount of money to the people that need it. When I was older and learned how things work, I realised that them setting up charities and organising events and things that go on beyond themselves is more productive. I mean, spending £200,000 to set up a charity and associated network to run that charity that will go on to continually make money to help is going to be better than simply giving a single cash injection to the cause. Of course, it wouold be better if you also give a huge amount of cash to give it a good start but still, it is long term solutions we should be looking at.

Isn't that what should've happened here?
Instead of adopting a single child, shouldn't Madonna instead seek to rectify the problems faced by ALL of the children at that ophanage?
I mean, as my friend said, wouldn't it even be more preferable to simply give the father the money needed to take care of the child?