Three families, three different diagnoses, one oncologist — and the same scenario: hope for recovery until the last day, aggressive chemotherapy despite patient exhaustion, and documents that look different after death than before surgery. Marina Belotserkivska from the Odrex clinic appears in the stories of businessman Adnan Kivan, sailor Igor Melai, and Krystyna Totkaylo's father. Only one of these stories reached court. The other two exist so far only as accounts from relatives in the documentary film "Wasps' Nest."
The practical question here is not "who is guilty," but simpler: how can an ordinary person verify that their loved one is being treated according to protocol, or is simply continuing the course because the clinic is private and paid?
What the court actually examines
In Kivan's case, the accusation is formulated narrowly — improper performance of professional duties leading to sepsis and death. The court does not evaluate the philosophy of treatment in general; it searches for a specific causal link: whether an antibiotic was prescribed when it should have been, whether complications were responded to in time. This is important to understand, because such narrowness is the main difficulty in medical cases in Ukraine. Even if a family is convinced that treatment was unjustifiably aggressive, it can only be proven legally through an examination of specific actions, not through a general impression from communication with the doctor.
This is why the stories of Melai and Totkaylo, despite similar details, do not yet have the same legal status — proceedings have been opened based on Olga Melai's complaint, but they are at a different stage.
Discrepancies in documents — this is not a detail, it is a key
In two of the three stories, relatives say the same thing: what they signed and what ended up in the case materials or medical records do not match. Olga Melai claims she agreed to local anesthesia, but the documents show intravenous; a planned operation became an emergency in the papers. Krystyna Totkaylo points to discrepancies between records and actual procedures.
This is precisely the moment where the story stops being exclusively emotional and becomes a practical instruction for anyone undergoing paid treatment: a copy of the informed consent should be taken immediately after signing, not expected to be received from the clinic after the fact. The eHealth system, where data about procedures should be entered, can be checked independently — and this is exactly what Olga Melai's complaint to the Ministry of Health now insists on.
Why "aggressive treatment" is a slippery formula
Oncology is a field where the boundary between hope and overtreatment is almost always subjective, and even colleague doctors can assess risk differently. It is telling that Krystyna Totkaylo's father was initially refused aggressive chemotherapy at Kyiv's "Theophania" during a consultation, as the team considered the patient's condition too vulnerable — and then the very surgeon present at that consultation referred the family to his wife at Odrex, where the course was prescribed. This is not proof of guilt, but it illustrates how the decision to "continue or stop" depends on the specific person at the table, not on a universal protocol.
Relatives in all three cases describe the same emotional mechanism: the clinic conveyed confidence and hope even when objective indicators — patient immobility for months, kidney failure, mucous membrane damage — were already signaling the opposite.
What can be checked now
- Right to a second opinion: before starting or continuing an aggressive course, it is possible and advisable to request an opinion from another oncological center, especially if the patient's condition deteriorates sharply.
- Copies of documents — immediately: informed consent, medical records, operation protocols should be with the family at the moment of signing, not months later through a court request.
- eHealth as a control tool: a patient or their representative can check whether actual procedures have been entered into the electronic system and whether they match what was communicated orally.
The criminal case of Kivan has already moved to evidence examination — and its result will show whether Ukrainian courts can at all prove the boundary between an unfortunate course of disease and medical negligence. If the court finds guilt, it will create a precedent that other families can rely on. If not, the question of who and how controls private oncology clinics will remain rhetorical for many years to come.
