MANY people will see the Adoption Board's decision to appeal the High Court judgment recognising Chinese adoptions as either uncaring or rigidly bureaucratic. The announcement is a major blow to the couples who took the legal action. But while it may be bad news in the short term, there is logic in the Adoption Board's action, which may not be evident at first glance.

Adopting children from abroad is seen generally as a heroic under-taking but strict regulation of intercountry adoption may be compatible with helping needy children.

Coherent laws and an insistence on high standards of practice are safeguards for all concerned, particularly children and birth parents.

The evidence from other countries points to the danger in loosening controls too quickly, as it can leave the way open for exploitation.

Those who took their case to the High Court last week are clear that the children they are adopting have been abandoned and will literally die if not adopted.

The Adoption Board, however, must legislate for situations that are not so clear cut, especially where unscrupulous middle-men might exploit the adopter's vulnerability.

For example, in Romania in 1989 thousands of children were in appalling "orphanages" but few were orphans and even fewer were available for adoption.

In 1990, a change in the Romanian adoption law led to a black market in children, described by Dr Alexandra Zugravescu, the country's chief adoption officer, as the "black period of Romanian adoptions".

At its height, children changed hands for up to $10,000 (£6,378) each, with virtually no restriction.

According to Hans van Loon, a Dutch adoption expert, about 20-per cent of Romanian adopted children came from institutions at that time. The rest were placed directly by family members.

Regulatory adoption agencies, such as the Adoption Board, must take a calm and long-term view of adoption practice.

At times, its position might appear insensitive. But in the interest of confidentiality, the board cannot reveal instances of tragedy or wrong-doing, which, when uncovered, greatly influence its policies.

Objections to arranging adoptions with countries such as China are not just about the compatibility of adoption laws but also about acceptable standards of practice.

For instance, according to a report last year by the legal affairs correspondent of the Sunday Times, the Chinese government "demands donations of £2,000 to orphanages from which the babies are adopted, along with a £750 administration charge". Demands of this kind would be unacceptable here.

Another reason why policy-makers must retain a detached view is the reality that foreign adoption can only ever be a drop of kindness in an ocean of misery.

The scale of the adversity faced by children abroad is emphasised by figures from Brazil where, every year, 250,000 children die before they reach their first year. One in every four children suffers irreversible brain damage due to poor nutrition. In the Greater Sao Paulo area alone, 200,000 children do not live with their mothers.

To caring childless couples in the west, such suffering and death seem an obscenity and make their own inability to have children all the more cruel. Faced with such human misery, the goodwill of adopters can be exploited. Police sources in Brazil, for instance, estimate that for every 1,500 children who leave the country legally for adoption, 3,000 are taken out illegally.

In Sri Lanka, an impoverished mother may receive $50 for placing her child for adoption. That same child may change hands later for anything up to $5,000 on the black market.

Worse horror stories come from Ecuador, where children have been kidnapped and sold to unwitting adopters. They meet a woman posing as the mother of the child at the court hearing and know nothing of the anguish of the true parents. As the Peruvian writers of a chapter in a recent book (see below) on foreign adoption say, "adoption can degenerate into a very profitable business for dishonest attorneys".

Intercountry adoption will never solve the poverty and inequality that children endure in developing countries; only huge social and economic change can do that.

But the fact remains that whatever little we contribute, it should be done to a high standard so that no one can ever claim that an adoption was conducted in anything but an ethical fashion.

We have our own recent history of babies being placed for adoption in North America, with falsified documents and undue pressure being brought on young women to give them up.

Many of these problems will be resolved if Ireland becomes a full signatory to the 1993 Hague Convention on intercountry adoption which contains built-in safeguards for all concerned.