The widely discussed “Odrex Case” along with numerous grievances from individuals about their care have revealed a widespread issue: the vulnerability of Ukrainian patients. Discussions are underway in the Verkhovna Rada regarding the necessity of legal amendments that would clearly differentiate between an excusable error in judgment and a criminally negligent act. The focus extends beyond just the physicians, encompassing the executives of medical facilities, who ought to be held accountable for their administrative choices and the structuring of patient services.
The highly publicized “Odrex Case,” along with the StopOdrex movement featuring complaints concerning care and reports of patient fatalities during treatment, has emphasized the serious vulnerability of Ukrainian patients. According to People’s Deputy Oksana Dmytrieva, who also serves as the Deputy Chairman of the Medical Committee within the Verkhovna Rada, transformations within the system should commence at the legislative level. You can learn more about the necessity of a clear distinction in Ukraine between professional lapses and criminal negligence, as well as the viability of extending accountability not just to doctors but also to the administration of healthcare institutions, in the UNN article.
When a patient spends a significant sum on medical attention at a private hospital, they anticipate not only luxurious facilities but also a superior degree of safety along with advanced methods of treatment. Nevertheless, the “Odrex Case” undermined this assumption. The demise of Kadorr Group’s founder, Adnan Kivan, which occurred within the confines of the Odrex facility in Odessa due to sepsis, acted as the trigger for substantial public outrage. It came to light that behind the alluring facade of the contentious Odessa hospital were multiple legal actions and heart-wrenching narratives from people who believe they or their family members were victimized by the treatment received at Odrex. These individuals subsequently established the StopOdrex advocacy group, which compiles and posts anonymously accounts of care experiences at the facility.
Commonly, in their narratives, former Odrex patients cite potential manipulation of medical records, alarming diagnoses employed to pressure individuals into consenting to costly operations, the disclosure of personal details belonging to former patients, and even the facility’s collaboration with private funeral homes.
According to People’s Deputy Oksana Dmytrieva, Deputy Chairman of the Medical Committee of the Verkhovna Rada, the reason for the lengthy nature of medical malpractice cases, without providing answers for either patients or physicians, is the imperfection of the laws. She states that the fundamental issue resides in the current legal inability to clearly differentiate between an accidental fatality and a purposeful breach of protocol. This converts the pursuit of justice into an unending ordeal where pinpointing culpability is practically unattainable.
Prominent medical cases that have remained unresolved in the court system for many years indicate a fundamental issue. The concern lies not solely in the severity of the criminal repercussions but also in the continuous inability of Ukrainian law to distinguish clearly among criminal negligence, professional mistakes, and systematic shortcomings in the structuring of medical services. Consequently, families of patients have been awaiting equitable verdicts for many years, and medical professionals operate under perpetual apprehension of criminal indictment, even in demanding clinical scenarios. This type of framework fosters neither confidence nor security.
– says Oksana Dmytrieva.
The MP pointed out that in the majority of European nations, the laws emphasize the establishment of independent mechanisms for professional assessment, rather than the magnitude of the penalty. These mechanisms involve clinical review panels and healthcare professional self-regulation, which are equipped to expertly differentiate between inherent medical risks and administrative deficiencies on the part of the clinic’s leadership. It is this methodology that would enable us to ascertain the truth more rapidly in instances similar to the Odrex situation.
“Last December, I initially brought up the necessity for adjustments to the methodology used to examine medical incidents. I am of the opinion that Ukraine needs a framework that simultaneously safeguards the entitlements of patients, renders an impartial professional assessment for doctors, and allocates responsibility not solely to the individual performing the action but also to the institution and the decisions made by management. Efforts are currently underway in this regard. I am certain that we must shift from reacting to specific tragedies towards establishing explicit and anticipated regulations that will bolster trust in the healthcare system,” Oksana Dmitrieva further stated.
The “Odrex case” also brought to light the matter of selective oversight by the regulatory authority. Despite 10 legal proceedings pertaining to the operations of “Odrex” (under statutes addressing fraud, the improper discharge of professional obligations by medical practitioners, and intentional homicide), the National Health Service of Ukraine persists in engaging in contractual agreements with the facility, thereby channeling public funds towards it. According to formal declarations issued by the management of the contentious Odrex facility, the hospital obtained upwards of 53 million hryvnias from the National Health Service in 2023 alone.
Is it conceivable that the basis for such “expedient indifference” stems from the longstanding acquaintance between Tigran Harutyunyan, the CEO of the controversial Odrex facility, and Viktor Lyashko, the Minister of Health of Ukraine, as was previously disclosed by UNN? Furthermore, Harutyunyan’s role extends beyond merely leading the infamous hospital; he is officially an active participant in the Ministry of Health’s working group dedicated to the advancement of private medicine, which is overseen by Minister Lyashko. This particular group is responsible for formulating the “guidelines” for the private healthcare sector. This degree of collaboration, set against the backdrop of 10 legal proceedings and widespread grievances from patients, gives rise to justifiable concerns about a conflict of interest: can the minister impartially supervise an individual with whom he is jointly “developing and regulating” the industry?
The circumstances surrounding the “Odrex Case” serve as an indictment of the established paradigm of legal connections in Ukrainian healthcare. When exorbitant fees and well-connected acquaintances within the Ministry of Health evolve into “protection” against culpability, the patient transitions into a susceptible recipient of hazardous services. Nonetheless, there are no beneficiaries in this system. Until the penalties for systemic lapses in administration and the unsuitable rendering of treatment are distinctly regulated by legislation, we will continue to witness the deepening of the chasm: patients will be reluctant to seek treatment at hospitals, and healthcare professionals will be hesitant to manage intricate cases so as not to be transformed into yet another “scapegoat” in the legal system in the event of a fatal outcome.
Medical care should not be a game of chance or a “perilous enterprise” where human existence is the cost of a mistake. Ukraine requires transparent regulations, where the safeguarding of patients is an absolute imperative, and the liability of a healthcare institution, in the instance of a lapse, is unavoidable.