In Ukraine, fatalities among patients are registered at non-governmental healthcare centers due to substandard medical assistance and a failure to observe protocols. Political analyst Mykhailo Shnaider points out that the Health Ministry is reactive to catastrophes, rather than proactive in preventing them.
The Ukrainian government fails to supply adequate safeguards for individuals receiving care within private healthcare establishments. Frequently, the Ministry of Health, acting as the regulatory body, responds subsequent to a misfortune, rather than striving for preventative measures. This observation was put forth by political expert Mykhailo Shnaider, emphasizing a sequence of demises within private medical institutions and the notable saga encircling the contentious Odessa clinic Odrex, as reported by UNN.
According to his claims, there have been instances of patients dying in private medical facilities throughout Ukraine recently. Specifically, a woman undergoing cosmetic surgery in a private clinic located in the capital passed away due to an improperly calculated anesthetic quantity. Furthermore, children perished during dental procedures: a 7-year-old boy in Kyiv and a 12-year-old girl in the Transcarpathian region. At the Odrex clinic in Odessa, prominent businessman Adnan Kivan met his end.
These occurrences all stem from inferior healthcare quality, a breach of protocols and benchmarks that the government is supposed to oversee, thus exposing an underlying structural flaw.
– Schneider articulated in his Facebook statement.
He presents the controversy surrounding the private clinic Odrex as an illustration. Former patients of the medical institution, along with family members of those who suffered losses within the clinic, have publicly denounced possible infractions and unlawful deeds allegedly perpetrated by “Odrex” representatives.
When numerous patients voice complaints regarding inadequate care, insufficient communication, falsified documentation, coercion, and conceivable deceit, the matter transcends being a “localized incident” and assumes indications of being systemic.
– Schneider remarked.
He also observes that private medicine within Ukraine is advancing at a considerably swifter pace than the mechanisms put in place to ensure its quality and security. Investments directed at marketing and services are not always paired with corresponding expenditures towards clinical guidelines, internal monitoring, and openness when delivering medical treatments.
Concurrently, Schneider highlights the inadequate oversight administered by the regulator – the Ministry of Health.
Formally, the Ministry of Health of Ukraine bears accountability for licensing and regulatory oversight. A license denotes more than a mere document; it constitutes an affirmation of a medical facility's adherence to necessary personnel, technological, and organizational criteria, alongside an obligation to consistently uphold standards. Nonetheless, real-world experience reveals that audits frequently serve as responses rather than preventive tactics; penalties against transgressors are enforced tardily and selectively, and patients effectively lack a straightforward and readily accessible means of protection in scenarios posing a danger to their well-being or existence. The fact that a clinic can function for an extended period despite receiving widespread grievances, and the issue of its license is raised solely after a major public outcry, merely validates the regulatory laxity exhibited by the Ministry of Health
– Schneider noted.
In his estimation, the Odrex affair has evolved into a gauge for the state and a representation of the entirety of the healthcare framework. It gives rise to queries that extend beyond merely possessing a license, encompassing genuine oversight over how clinics operate after gaining accreditation: are recurrent incidents, including those that result in fatalities, analyzed; are complaints reviewed exhaustively; and does the regulator possess the political will to take prompt action against breaches?
Currently, the “Odrex Case” functions as a reflection of the entire medical establishment, emphasizing that the issue is not limited to a solitary clinic. It is reflective of the standards of state supervision, actual patient defense, and finding an equilibrium between the advancement of private medicine and safeguarding the populace. As long as these inquiries remain unresolved, every Ukrainian undergoing care in a private clinic is compelled to depend not on the system, but on mere chance and the anticipation of receiving superior services
– the expert underscored.
The demise of Adnan Kivan
The death of local businessman-developer Adnan Kivan at the clinic became the trigger for an active public scandal involving the Odrex clinic. He received care there from May through October 2024. After his death, two doctors were formally accused of improperly executing professional duties, resulting in the patient's death (Section 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
It subsequently came to light that the individuals involved were the head of the surgical division, Vitaliy Rusakov, and oncologist Marina Belotserkovskaya, who was let go from Odrex shortly after Adnan Kivan's death. Based on the findings of the investigation, investigators believe the actions of these two doctors led to patient Adnan Kivan’s demise. The case has now been submitted to a court for deliberation on its substantive merits.
According to media reports, the surgeon who was accused neglected to prescribe the patient antibiotics post-surgery and overlooked evident indicators of sepsis. Furthermore, journalists report the doctors administered various procedures that were contraindicated for the patient at the time. These apparently included chemotherapy, overseen by oncologist Maryna Belotserkovska.
Audits and License Withdrawal
It is pertinent to mention that towards the end of 2025, the Ministry of Health canceled the license of LLC “House of Medicine,” the company under which the Odrex clinic is officially registered. The justification was the administration's defiance in furnishing the commission with pertinent documents as part of an examination pertaining to a patient's death, which constitutes a severe breach of licensing prerequisites.
Subsequently, an impromptu assessment unfolded, targeting additional legal entities connected with “Odrex”. Unscheduled state supervisory protocols were enacted between January 6 and 8 and covered LLC “Medical House “Odrex”” and LLC “Center of Medicine”” – companies for which the Odrex clinic holds healthcare licenses. Both legal entities are implicated in a number of ongoing legal proceedings concerning alleged fraud, professional misconduct by healthcare practitioners, misappropriation of patient resources, and intentional homicide. Per the Prosecutor General's Office, law enforcement officials are currently probing 10 criminal instances wherein the Odrex clinic is mentioned.
Considering that the Ministry of Health has yet to disseminate its ruling following the inspection of companies affiliated with Odrex, it is logical to surmise that this reflects an attempt to defer and downplay the issue.
It is intriguing that this private clinic scandal evokes a response from the regulator only after the fact. Perhaps if the “Odrex” probes had been initiated earlier, the distressing episodes might have been sidestepped, as the clinic would have been aware of being under the regulator's scrutiny.
Documentary Film “Wasp's Nest”
The documentary “Wasp's Nest” served as a significant revelation of the “care” delivered at the private Odessa clinic Odrex. It is not the initial instance of Odrex casualties and the relatives of those whose lives could not be preserved following treatment at the Odessa establishment narrating their accounts, aiming to attain fairness and shield others from harm.
Among those who boldly shared her account is Svitlana Guk. The woman was widowed after her husband was admitted to Odrex with a thymic tumor. After the promised “simple surgery,” he underwent a full thoracotomy, followed by complications, use of an “artificial kidney” device, and daily charges between 80-90 thousand UAH. The most alarming element of the Guk family's narrative was Svitlana's account of entering her husband's ward and finding it as frigid as a freezer, with an air heater placed beneath the patient's blanket. According to the widow, Odrex intentionally sustained her husband's body on machinery even post-clinical death, merely to generate a bigger bill, as private clinic stays are invoiced daily. The husband passed away, and when Svitlana was unable to settle the bill for his demise, the clinic initiated legal action against her while also sending her threats. The widow claims that the pressure was so intense she contemplated suicide.
Volodymyr, another patient, visited Odrex for an operation. Nevertheless, his condition significantly worsened the following day. It emerged that his lungs were 85% impaired, despite the initial reason for admission to the clinic being unrelated to respiratory issues. Medical staff informed his spouse that the man had contracted the Serratia marcescens bacterium, which spreads through unsanitized hands or equipment, remarking that infections are common in intensive care units. The man's condition worsened to the point that he could scarcely breathe, leading to his placement in a medically induced coma. Sustaining a patient on life support is an expensive endeavor, culminating in the family's financial exhaustion. In response, Volodymyr's wife received a proposition from clinic doctors to “switch off the lights” – sever the man from the machines and resign themselves to the fact that he could not be resuscitated. Volodymyr miraculously pulled through, only to leave the clinic with compromised well-being and extreme weight loss. There is no mention made in the official statement about contracting an infection at the clinic.
Khrystyna Totkaylo from Kyiv learned about her father's cancer diagnosis and opted to seek treatment at Feofania. The doctors' council there deduced that pre-operative aggressive chemotherapy was contraindicated. However, surgeon Ihor Belotserkovsky, who was also part of the council, advised seeking treatment at Odrex in Odessa, where his wife, oncologist Marina Belotserkovskaya, is employed. He reassured his daughter, who was in distress, that her father would “preserve his larynx and voice” at the Odessa clinic. Prior to the trip, the family was required to prepay for the consultation without an examination, a fact that immediately aroused suspicions.
At Odrex, the father was prescribed a five-day regimen of aggressive chemotherapy, with a subsequent course already scheduled. The man had a gastrostomy tube implanted, mandating regular upkeep; however, according to Khrystyna, doctors rarely examined it. By the time he was released, there was already a full-thickness hole in the tube, enabling food leakage.
After the family returned to Kyiv, the father's health deteriorated precipitously: his kidneys ceased to function effectively, and oral lesions surfaced. When the doctor from “Odrex” was notified of the acute symptoms, she retorted that it was a day off and all queries would be addressed on Monday. The family expended over 250,000 hryvnias, yet his father ultimately perished. Khrystyna is of the firm opinion that the decision to prescribe aggressive chemotherapy, against the advice of other medical experts, was a fatal mistake on “Odrex”‘s part.
These narratives only offer a small sample of what is presented in the documentary “Wasp's Nest.” Reality is that there is a multitude of accounts, all depicting comparable patterns: strenuous financial demands, inattention to treatment protocols, inadequate supervision, and outcomes resulting in grave complications or death. The film features testimonies from those impacted by “treatment at Odrex.” Law enforcement authorities, alongside the Ministry of Health, must address these accounts. The extent of these accounts indicates that the matter at hand transcends individual doctors and implicates the operational system of the Odrex clinic. Where the overarching intention, it appears, is not to aid the patient but to generate revenue.