Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
This is in response to the News Extra appeared on 3 August in the
BMJ.
I am deeply touched to read the news of C. Kovac about our trial. We
were asked by the authorities of the Ministry of Health in 1989 to launch
a programme to help adoption in pregnant women with unwanted pregnancies
in order to decrease the very high number of abortions (about 80% of
livebirths), suicide attempts (average 220 per year), infanticides (six
times higher in Hungary than in the US) and to reduce the number of about
20 thousand children in the state foster homes. Since 1989, 70 pregnant
women asked us to help them, of course it was only a medical first aid
because the adoption procedure was managed by the public guardianship
authorities. Unfortunately, we were not able to find infertile Hungarian
couples for five pregnant women (four had gypsy origin), thus we
considered that the only possibility for the solution of their problem was
to help finding a foreign couple who would come to Hungary to adopt their
babies here. Of 5, three foreign couples were sent by Mrs. Gáti – the lady
that offered her contribution by her registered Adoption Agency in the US
and for the other two we have got help from US medical doctors. Mrs. Gáti
offered financial support (USD 1000 per couple) for our work and USD 3000
was accepted as a reimbursement of our miscellaneous expenses which were
clearly documented. This legal procedure was confirmed by the Minister of
Health, Judit Csehák M.D. who has testified in the trial accordingly.
However according to the indictment, I was accused for providing help in
the cases of six pregnant women to give birth in the US and to give their
babies for adoption there, illegally (without the knowledge of the
Hungarian public guardianship authorities). The charges have been dropped
by the head of the Court in three cases as I have never met them and I had
no information about their adoption. The other three gypsy women visited
me and I suggested Hungarian adoption and they accepted my advice. As it
appeared over the trial, my co-workers were not able to find Hungarian
infertile couples, who were willing to adopt these children but instead of
informing me, they gave Mrs. Gáti’s co-ordinates to these women suggesting
them to arrange the adoption by foreign couples. However, it occurred that
Mrs. Gáti later persuaded them to go to the US. The procedure of these
medical counselling are documented and these three women confirmed my
statement. Despite of all, I was found guilty in these three cases, just
like in a fourth when a Hungarian infertile couple has adopted a baby in
the frame of our programme and later agreed to reimburse the costs of the
pregnancy without my knowledge. The sentence of the first degree Court has
shocked me as the report of C. Kovac. Of course, I have appealed for
acquittal and if it will be necessary we will go to the International
Court in Strassbourg. We protected the lives of 70 fetuses and some
pregnant women without requesting and receiving any money – I could be
blamed for the errors of my leadership as the head - however, we were
found guilty with serious charges.
At present, I have only one hope and that is the faith of my scientific
colleagues and friends, who have known me for the last thirty-forty years.
Response
This is in response to the News Extra appeared on 3 August in the
BMJ.
I am deeply touched to read the news of C. Kovac about our trial. We
were asked by the authorities of the Ministry of Health in 1989 to launch
a programme to help adoption in pregnant women with unwanted pregnancies
in order to decrease the very high number of abortions (about 80% of
livebirths), suicide attempts (average 220 per year), infanticides (six
times higher in Hungary than in the US) and to reduce the number of about
20 thousand children in the state foster homes. Since 1989, 70 pregnant
women asked us to help them, of course it was only a medical first aid
because the adoption procedure was managed by the public guardianship
authorities. Unfortunately, we were not able to find infertile Hungarian
couples for five pregnant women (four had gypsy origin), thus we
considered that the only possibility for the solution of their problem was
to help finding a foreign couple who would come to Hungary to adopt their
babies here. Of 5, three foreign couples were sent by Mrs. Gáti – the lady
that offered her contribution by her registered Adoption Agency in the US
and for the other two we have got help from US medical doctors. Mrs. Gáti
offered financial support (USD 1000 per couple) for our work and USD 3000
was accepted as a reimbursement of our miscellaneous expenses which were
clearly documented. This legal procedure was confirmed by the Minister of
Health, Judit Csehák M.D. who has testified in the trial accordingly.
However according to the indictment, I was accused for providing help in
the cases of six pregnant women to give birth in the US and to give their
babies for adoption there, illegally (without the knowledge of the
Hungarian public guardianship authorities). The charges have been dropped
by the head of the Court in three cases as I have never met them and I had
no information about their adoption. The other three gypsy women visited
me and I suggested Hungarian adoption and they accepted my advice. As it
appeared over the trial, my co-workers were not able to find Hungarian
infertile couples, who were willing to adopt these children but instead of
informing me, they gave Mrs. Gáti’s co-ordinates to these women suggesting
them to arrange the adoption by foreign couples. However, it occurred that
Mrs. Gáti later persuaded them to go to the US. The procedure of these
medical counselling are documented and these three women confirmed my
statement. Despite of all, I was found guilty in these three cases, just
like in a fourth when a Hungarian infertile couple has adopted a baby in
the frame of our programme and later agreed to reimburse the costs of the
pregnancy without my knowledge. The sentence of the first degree Court has
shocked me as the report of C. Kovac. Of course, I have appealed for
acquittal and if it will be necessary we will go to the International
Court in Strassbourg. We protected the lives of 70 fetuses and some
pregnant women without requesting and receiving any money – I could be
blamed for the errors of my leadership as the head - however, we were
found guilty with serious charges.
At present, I have only one hope and that is the faith of my scientific
colleagues and friends, who have known me for the last thirty-forty years.
Andrew E. Czeizel M.D.
Competing interests: No competing interests