Awkward Questions in Onopriyenko Case

Why is a murderer being shown so much on state-run television, interviewed, and listened to when he says horrible things, why are conclusions being leapt to (including by the President) about his lot?

We want very much to look good, but this is impossible to do. In June the Council of Europe will again turn its eyes to Ukraine and ask: do you have an independent judiciary, is everything all right with local government, and what about the freedom of expression? And none of these questions can be answered positively. The courts are under pressure, local government a myth, and media freedom (especially the electronic media) is altogether out of the question: which state-run channel could show an opposition politician?

But all these problems do not exist in mass consciousness. What Europe is dissatisfied with seems to come down to the problem of capital punishment. It seems impossible to abolish it: public opinion seems to have been shaped on purpose.

On June 4, 1997, a decision of the forensic psychiatric commission was made public to the effect that Anatoly Onopriyenko "does not suffer from mental illness, nor does he require any medical treatment." But I saw with my own eyes Onoprienko's case history stored in a specialized clinic. If Onopriyenko is well, then it is not clear why in 1994 he was diagnosed in Kyiv's Pavlov Hospital as having schizophrenia and subjected to a four-month course of treatment. And who stood to gain from the expert decision about Onopriyenko's mental soundness remaining final?

One more question arises here: who are the judges, sorry, the experts? Departmental forensic expert examination in the former Soviet Union is shrouded in terrible legends, disfigured destinies being sound proof to this. There is no departmental forensic expert examination in Ukraine, but all information about psychiatrists with relevant status is available at the Ministry of Public Health. Hence the experts' independence is another questionable point. We are not doctors or judges, so we cannot make any categorical statements. But it is a journalist's duty to draw attention to awkward questions. Even if they are being asked as harshly as by Serhiy Holovaty. "Today it is in the interests of the executive not only to show it honors its promises but also to distract public attention from the resolution passed by the Council of Europe Assembly. The resolution identifies the main cause of all Ukrainian problems: attempts of the current government to hold power at any, even illegal, cost," Mr. Holovaty told The Day, "It is completely possible that Onopriyenko is mentally ill, but the executive needs to make him out as healthy, for if Onopriyenko is ill and subject to medical treatment rather than shot, the scenario worked out will go awry."

Anatoly Onopriyenko was treated at Kyiv's Pavlov Mental Hospital from May 31 to September 16, 1994. He had been rushed to the clinic by a militia detail. The case history says Onopriyenko attracted the militiamen's attention at the railway station, where he had been standing motionless over an hour in front of the ticket office, trying to hypnotize the cashier.

Having analyzed the results of observations by doctors and nurses as well as the patient's condition, doctor Halyna Shurenok made a tentative diagnosis of schizophrenia.

The Day's correspondent has met Ms. Shurenok, now chief medical officer of Kyiv's Mental Hospital No. 3:

"I only examined Onopriyenko once, so I cannot now confirm the preliminary diagnosis I made then. But looking back today on my brief encounter with him, on his mimicry, behavior, the pose in which the patient sat in bed, I may suggest that the diagnosis was correct at that time. Moreover, Onopriyenko then did not have any reason to feign illness. He was behaving quite naturally and reacted adequately to being treated with neuroleptic medications. The organism of a healthy person reacts to such injections altogether differently. If I were an expert, I would not say so categorically that the patient does not suffer even from temporary mental disorders.

"Watching TV programs on Onopriyenko, I, as a psychiatrist, cannot understand why the forensic expert commission ignores what he says about voices, flying saucers, and aliens. For such statements have always been interpreted in world psychiatric experience as symptoms of schizophrenia. Nor do experts pay attention to his own motivation for crimes: 'I killed the children so they wouldn't be orphans.' I am surprised that expert examination was carried out on an out-patient, rather than in-patient, basis, and that it only took 28 hours to actually watch the patient. Under law, a patient should be kept under constant medical supervision for a month. What also raises questions is the fact that the experts did not invite for consultation any of those doctors who treated Onopriyenko in 1994. The commission even failed to analyze our examination."

Such strange a behavior by the forensic psychiatric commission may become clear if we take into account the fact that in today's Ukraine all mental clinics, their staff as well as forensic experts, are subordinated to one body - the Ministry of Public Health. In practice, it is this ministry, and not the judicial and investigative bodies, as is laid down in the Criminal Procedural Code, that appoints members of a forensic psychiatric commission.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has today not so many forensic psychiatrists, and the very system of training forensic specialists leaves much to be desired. All too often doctors undergo tests and are examined as a pure formality. This is why the Ukrainian Association of Psychiatrists, with the consent of the Ministry of Public Health, is looking for independent sources of funds to establish in this country an alternative system of training forensic psychiatrists. It is a project so far, but perhaps in a few years' time Ukraine will have new forensic psychiatrists. The authorities will find it more difficult to manipulate human destinies and cash in on human misfortunes.