On the eve of another court hearing in the case of businessman Adnan Kivan's death, the accused doctor Vitaliy Rusakov intensified his public activity – he published a video on YouTube and called on everyone who cares to come to court to support him. The doctor's rhetoric raises questions about his adherence to medical confidentiality and ethics. UNN investigated why Rusakov's words look more like attempts at manipulation and subjective interpretation of facts.
Tomorrow, April 3, another hearing in the case of medical negligence that could have caused the death of businessman Adnan Kivan is scheduled to take place in the Primorsky District Court of Odesa, presided over by Judge Larysa Pereverzieva. On the eve of the hearing, doctor Vitaliy Rusakov, who is accused in the case, intensified public communication around the process. In particular, on his Facebook page, he called on "all those who care" to come to court and support him. In parallel, the doctor published a vlog on YouTube.
The editorial board of UNN analyzed Rusakov's video, which he presents as an explanation of his position. As it turned out, some statements look quite controversial.
"Did not treat," but "operated": contradictions in Rusakov's statements
In particular, in the video, the scandalous doctor Rusakov emphasizes that he allegedly "was not the attending physician of Adnan Kivan" during his last hospitalization. At the same time, in the same video, he admits that he "locally resolved surgical issues." In fact, this is an attempt to distance himself from responsibility, despite obvious involvement in the treatment of patient Adnan Kivan. Such a contradiction in his own words looks like manipulation: on the one hand, denying his own role in the patient's treatment, on the other hand, confirming participation in the treatment process.
Violation of medical confidentiality
A separate question arises from the fact that Rusakov publicly discloses details of patient Adnan Kivan's condition before his death: the course of treatment, the number of chemotherapy courses, and other medical aspects. Such statements raise serious questions about his adherence to medical confidentiality – one of the basic principles of the medical profession.
According to the Ethical Code of the Doctor of Ukraine, information about a patient's health status, treatment methods, and medical interventions is confidential and not subject to disclosure without the consent of the patient or their family. In this case, it is about disclosing details of the treatment of a person who has already died, which only enhances the sensitivity of the topic.
Moreover, the use of such data in public communication, especially in the context of a court case, may look like an attempt to justify one's own position by disclosing private information. This calls into question not only adherence to professional standards but also the ethical boundaries of behavior in a public conflict.
Criticism of the court and attempts to discredit the format of the process
Another block of Rusakov's statements concerns the format of the court process. In his vlog, he claims that the prosecution allegedly seeks to "close the court from society." However, as UNN previously reported, the court decided on a partially open hearing of the case – with restrictions on broadcasting during the announcement of personal data and medical information of the patient.
This format directly complies with the norms of criminal procedural legislation, which provides for the protection of medical confidentiality and private information. In particular, in cases containing sensitive medical data, the court has the right to limit the openness of the session. Despite this, in his public statements, Rusakov presents the situation as an attempt to "hide the truth," which looks like a distortion of factual circumstances and a simplified interpretation of procedural norms.
In the same context, the doctor also accuses the court of "strange decisions," particularly regarding his suspension from the position of a doctor. However, in reality, this is about extending an already existing preventive measure, not new decisions, which again calls into question the correctness of the information presented in Rusakov's blogs.
Such rhetoric seems rather simplistic and infantile: decisions that are beneficial to the scandalous doctor are presented as fair, and those he dislikes are wrong. This approach reduces a complex judicial process to a black-and-white perception: "for" or "against."
Criticism of the media and selective logic
And, of course, in his video, Rusakov criticizes not only the prosecution, the court, and the process itself, but also the media that cover the high-profile case. He cites examples of publications from various media outlets, trying to question both their reliability and the very fact of information disclosure. At the same time, his argumentation seems inconsistent: on the one hand, accusations of spreading "unreliable data," on the other hand, accusations of disclosing information that, according to him, is true.
In addition, in his vlog, Rusakov also mentions UNN, noting that the publication's materials are published in Russian. However, he overlooks an obvious fact: UNN, like most Ukrainian online media, provides readers with the opportunity to choose a language: Ukrainian, English, or Russian. That is, the user determines which language to view the material in. Thus, Rusakov's criticism of UNN looks at least selective: he himself chooses the Russian-language version of our site, and then uses this fact as a reason for accusations against us.
From doctor to blogger
Also, in the video, Rusakov repeatedly appeals to the broader consequences of the case of possible medical negligence. In particular, he claims that if he is found guilty, Ukrainian doctors will allegedly begin to refuse to treat complex patients, especially those where there is a risk of fatal complications. According to his logic, this could lead to such patients effectively being unable to access help.
Thus, the doctor links the case of medical negligence and his personal responsibility to the future of the entire medical system of Ukraine. Such argumentation shifts the focus from the specific circumstances of the proceedings to generalized and hypothetical scenarios, which is a typical manipulation technique.
And finally, the video ends with a call to subscribe to the scandalous doctor's YouTube channel. Such an ending is more than indicative: instead of the restrained position of a participant in a court case, Rusakov is actually promoting his own media platform.
It seems that in parallel with the court, the doctor is building a new role for himself – a public commentator and blogger. And he does this by using the high-profile case of the death of his patient Adnan Kivan as an informational pretext to attract attention.
In this rhetoric, less and less remains of the doctor and more and more of a person who seeks an audience, reach, and recognition. And the question here is no longer just about the court, but also about how ethical it is to hype on the topic of his patient's death.
Recall
The desire for popularity and publicity in the scandalous doctor Vitaliy Rusakov was observed earlier. In particular, as UNN reported, the Odrex clinic systematically uses the doctor in its own PR publications, not abandoning attempts to create an image of a "savior doctor" for him, and not an accused of possible medical negligence.
In promotional videos, Rusakov is the main character – he receives all the attention and the largest amount of "airtime," while the context of his criminal proceedings is ignored and deliberately silenced by Odrex.