Vitaliy Rusakov, a doctor at the Odrex clinic, accused in a medical negligence case that could have led to the death of businessman Adnan Kivan, has gone public with his own version of events and loud statements about "consequences for all medicine." Read in the UNN material whether his words have a logical basis or if these statements are more like an attempt to exert pressure, exaggerate his own role, and manipulate a socially sensitive topic.
Vitaliy Rusakov, a doctor at the Odesa private hospital Odrex, accused in criminal proceedings under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, published a YouTube vlog in which he did not limit himself to explaining his own position but went much further – to generalizations that go beyond the specific case.
In fact, the doctor is trying to make the audience believe that his conviction will inevitably lead to the collapse of all Ukrainian medicine. He directly states that if he is found guilty, Ukrainian doctors will massively refuse complex patients and stop treating seriously ill people.
Opponents want to create a precedent for all doctors in Ukraine. If the disease involves fatal complications, knowing my story, all medical workers will simply refuse to treat complex oncological cases. This will lead to treatment becoming unavailable in Ukraine. I am convinced that such actions are proof that the prosecution does not want justice; they just want to punish doctors.
It seems that Rusakov is seriously trying to convince the audience that the fate of all Ukrainian medicine depends precisely on the verdict in his case. Is this an attempt to soberly assess the situation or a banal exaggeration of his own role?
Lawyers evaluate such statements much more restrainedly and soberly. In an exclusive comment for UNN, medical lawyer Dmytro Kasianenko directly indicates that the doctor's attempts to present one verdict as a "catastrophe for all medicine" are unrealistic. Moreover, such rhetoric contradicts the basic principles of the legal system, in particular the principle of individual responsibility, which is outlined both in the Constitution of Ukraine and in criminal law.
There is no norm in Ukraine according to which a verdict against one doctor automatically changes the rules for all others. The court considers a specific case regarding a specific person. Legal conclusions for practice are formed primarily in the positions of the Supreme Court, and not in a separate verdict. Therefore, talks about a "catastrophe for all medicine" are emotional pressure, not a legal position. If the investigation and the court prove a causal link between the actions or inaction of a specific doctor and the consequences, he or other persons whose guilt is proven bear responsibility. This directly follows, in particular, from Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. References to the "system" do not remove personal responsibility. The most that can be said here is a discussion about defensive medicine, that is, doctors' fear of risk. But this is not synonymous with a massive refusal of complex patients. Even in high-profile international cases, it was about professional discussion, and not about the paralysis of the entire medical system.
Ihor Kulykov, a lawyer specializing in criminal law at Prikhodko & Partners Law Firm, holds a similar position regarding the statements of the Odrex doctor. He believes that such statements by Rusakov are merely emotions. He also emphasizes that in civilized countries, medical negligence cases are common practice, and a doctor's responsibility does not destroy the system but, on the contrary, forms clearer standards for patient safety and professional responsibility.
Criminal law evaluates not the system, but the specific actions of a specific person. In such cases, the court establishes very clear things – whether there was a violation of professional standards, whether there is a causal link between the doctor's actions and the consequences, and whether guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the statement that a possible verdict against doctor Vitaliy Rusakov allegedly could change the behavior of the entire medical system of Ukraine or force doctors to massively refuse complex patients is rather an emotional assessment than a legal forecast. In civilized legal systems of the world, medical negligence cases are regularly considered. And practice shows: a doctor's responsibility does not destroy medicine – it forms clearer standards for patient safety and professional responsibility.
What is known about the Odrex doctors' case
The Primorsky District Court of Odesa continues to hear the criminal proceedings against doctors Vitaliy Rusakov and Maryna Bielotserkovska, who are accused under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker, which could have led to the patient's death.
According to the investigation, after surgery at the Odrex clinic, the patient was not prescribed the necessary antibacterial therapy and complications were not properly responded to. As a result, sepsis developed, which, according to expert conclusions, could have caused Adnan Kivan's death.
In the context of the case, attention is drawn not only to Rusakov's statements but also to his behavior during court hearings. The doctor regularly calls on colleagues and "concerned citizens" to come to court – after which "support groups" with hand-drawn posters in his honor appear in the hall. Such activity is more like an attempt to pressure the court, and in particular the presiding judge Larysa Pereverzieva, than support for the doctor.
Recall
The UNN editorial office has already analyzed Vitaliy Rusakov's video blog. And besides statements about a "catastrophe for medicine in case of a guilty verdict," it also contains other, no less critical points.
In particular, it concerns the public disclosure of medical details of the patient's condition, which casts doubt on compliance with medical confidentiality, as well as a rather free interpretation of the court's procedural decisions. Rusakov, for example, presents a partially open format of consideration as "closing the court," although it is about the standard practice of protecting personal and medical data.
In addition, the doctor's rhetoric contains signs of disrespect for the court – from public criticism to personalized accusations against the judge. In combination with active media activity, this creates the impression that the judicial process is gradually turning for the accused not only into a legal but also into a communication platform.
And, finally, the key: in this story, it is increasingly not a doctor who restrainedly defends his position in court, but a public figure who works for his own popularity and recognition.