national populism and slovak – hungarian relations in - MEK

The Case of Hedviga MalinováLabaš did not deem it necessary to request expert’s opinions fromLászló Sárközy and Jozef Hašto, psychiatrists who treated Malinová afterthe attack, since he paid virtually no attention to the victim’s mental conditionand the trauma she had been through. Based on his assessment of“examined documentation” (that was not specified) and photographs, hisown observations and “consultations with experts”, Labaš came to a conclusionthat Hedviga Malinová had not been battered.According to the document, Malinová had bitten her own lip because ifshe had sustained a blow to the lip, the swelling would have grown andnot diminished in the following days. The laceration on her lip and the contusionson her thighs originated before August 25, 2006; the report alsoconcluded that Malinová did not suffer a concussion and therefore anymemory loss. At the bottom, next to the stamp of Comenius University’sMedical Faculty, the report stated the names of twelve collaborators butonly one signature – that of Labaš. He explained this by saying that it wasa collective effort and that he had consulted his colleagues anytime hedeemed it necessary. 50Cited experts objectMost doctors identified as the report’s co-authors were totally reluctant tospeak for the media regarding the issues Peter Labaš had consulted withthem; however, their reactions indicate that they were asked rather generalquestions by Labaš, they did not know that they would be identified as thereport’s co-authors and they did not sign or even read the final report. 51On September 9, 2009, two of the phantom co-authors, namely psychiatristViera Koøínková and dental surgeon Peter Stanko, publicly dissociatedthemselves from the Labaš report. Koøínková stated she was not awarethat her name appeared on the list of experts, adding that she had turneddown an offer to cooperate on the matter back in summer 2008. Accordingto her, Labaš never consulted her regarding Malinová’s condition; all he didwas ask her to describe to him the mechanism of Diazepam’s effects withspecial reference to patient’s reasonableness. Koøínková provided Labašwith a general characteristic but stressed that in order to assess a concretecase she would need an opinion of psychiatrists treating the patient and anumber of specific information. Since Koøínková considered incorrect thatthe report had identified her as one of the co-authors without her knowledgeand consent, she visited Labaš in person and demanded that her namebe withdrawn from the list; Labaš refused to comply.National Populism and Slovak – Hungarian Relations in Slovakia 2006 – 2009. Forum Minority Research Institute Šamorín – Somorja, 2009331