Spare us Madonna's adoption tourism

In previous decades it was just Mia Farrow. Now the poor, foreign baby is a must-have thanks to Angelina Jolie, Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise, Ewan McGregor, Madonna et al. Their hearts are good and motives too, possibly. But not enough deep thought goes into these decisions.

They could do more good without owning the objects of their desires. When I described in this newspaper my volunteering with FUN, an organisation that helps children who need an extra, trusted adult in their lives, I had a huge response, including from wealthy and well-known individuals interested in doing their bit but anonymously. I talked one famous TV actress through the commitment. She didn't go for it because she is so recognisable: "Where could I go with a child without being stopped, followed and photographed?" I admired her sensitivity and lack of ego. She now actively supports several Aids orphans.

Kids Company, run by the indefatigable Camila Batmanghelidjh, helps some of our most damaged, violent and self-destructive children. Here too you find celeb volunteers and backers who simply want to do their bit without drama. Gwyneth Paltrow is designing clothes for children, the profits from which will go to Kids Company. Ruby Wax says her life changed when she met Batmangheldidjh, who advised her to study psychology. Wax did and now gives much of her time to young men and boys who have turned violent.

To be fair to Madonna, she is funding projects in Malawi. But that looks like payment for the children. She could instead build a children's centre and promise to spend three months of the year working there to make a difference. Or she could put together a mentoring scheme and get her Hollywood mates to volunteer every year.

Such schemes, however, offer little glamour or PR pay-off, guaranteed when savvy celebs rescue ragged dolls, dress them in designer gear and show off altruism like tattoos. Which, let's be honest, is one reason why celeb adoption is so popular.