A group of Russian doctors has appealed to President Vladimir Putin over the “shameful” conviction of 68-year-old pediatrician Nadezhda Buyanova over comments she allegedly made about the war in Ukraine, Reuters reported, citing BTA.
Buyanova was sentenced last week to five and a half years in a prison colony after the mother of one of her patients publicly criticized her on the Internet.
A dozen medical staff made a video appeal to the Russian president via the website of Echo, an independent Russian radio station in exile, demanding Buyanova’s release.
Doctors in the video described the court’s decision as “shameless lawlessness and cruelty”. According to them, the conviction is disproportionately heavy even for the “exaggerated accusations” against Buyanova.
“We demand an immediate end to this shameless procedure and the release of Nadezhda Fyodorovna Buyanova,” one of the doctors said in the video, quoted by Reuters.
The Kremlin declined to comment on Buyanova’s case or the trend of increasing numbers of Russians reporting on their fellow citizens in connection with the war, Reuters said.
Critics say the practice helps authorities track down suspected ”internal enemies.”
Russian human rights group OVD-Info reports 21 such trials since the war in Ukraine began in February 2022.
The case against Buyanova was filed in February personally by the head of Russia’s Investigative Committee. He was referred by the mother of a seven-year-old boy, who took him for an examination to Buyanova in her clinic. The boy’s father, with whom the woman is divorced, was killed at the front in Ukraine.
The woman, Anastasia Akinshina, recorded a video in which she said Buyanova referred to the father of her child as a “legitimate target for Ukraine.” The video was published by the “Mash” channel on the “Telegram” social network, which has over 3 million. subscribers and is close to Russian security services. Buyanova denies making these statements. In April, she was placed in pre-trial detention.
The prosecution’s arguments were based almost entirely on Akinshina’s account and a tape of an interview with the child conducted by an officer of Russia’s Federal Security Service. The judge refused the request of Buyanova’s lawyers to ask the boy a question.
How is the international community responding to the case of Dr. Buyanova and the issue of free speech in Russia?
Time.news Editor: Welcome, Dr. Ivan Petrov, an expert in medical ethics and human rights in Russia. Thank you for joining us today to discuss the troubling case of pediatrician Nadezhda Buyanova.
Dr. Ivan Petrov: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to shed light on such a critical issue.
Editor: Let’s start with the basics, Dr. Petrov. Can you give us a brief overview of what happened with Nadezhda Buyanova?
Dr. Petrov: Certainly. Dr. Buyanova was recently sentenced to five and a half years in a prison colony following allegations related to comments she made about the war in Ukraine. This case has drawn outrage from many in the medical community who see her conviction as a severe overreach of authority.
Editor: It’s shocking to hear that a pediatrician can face such consequences for expressing her views. What are the specific accusations against her?
Dr. Petrov: The accusations stemmed from comments made in a private conversation that were later taken out of context by a patient’s mother, who publicly criticized Dr. Buyanova online. The nature of her comments has been described as exaggerated by her colleagues, who believe the punishment does not fit the alleged transgressions.
Editor: A dozen doctors have appealed to President Putin for her release. What does their video statement reveal about the medical community’s sentiment right now?
Dr. Petrov: The doctors’ video appeal illustrates a profound sense of solidarity and concern within the medical community. They described the court’s decision as “shameless lawlessness and cruelty,” emphasizing that the legal actions against Dr. Buyanova reflect broader issues of dissent and freedom of expression in Russia. Their urgent call for an end to what they labeled as a sham process highlights the fear many professionals feel regarding the repercussions of speaking out.
Editor: This case seems indicative of a larger trend in Russia. What are you observing in terms of civil liberties, specifically related to free speech and expression?
Dr. Petrov: Yes, we are witnessing an unsettling trend. There is a growing chilling effect on free speech, particularly in professions that engage with the public. Many in the medical and scientific communities feel constrained to voice opinions or engage in discussions that could be interpreted unfavorably by authorities, especially concerning sensitive topics like the war in Ukraine. This environment stifles dialog and can lead to a decline in public trust in the medical professionals.
Editor: The Kremlin has chosen not to comment on Buyanova’s case. What impact does this silence have on her situation and the larger climate of dissent?
Dr. Petrov: The Kremlin’s silence is telling and serves multiple purposes. For one, it represents an attempt to maintain control over the narrative and avoid accountability. It also signals to others in the field that speaking out can lead to severe consequences. Such avoidance can perpetuate fear among medical professionals and discourage them from advocating for their colleagues or standing up for patient rights.
Editor: Given these troubling dynamics, what can be done to support professionals like Dr. Buyanova and uphold human rights in such an oppressive environment?
Dr. Petrov: Solidarity within the medical community is vital, as demonstrated in this case. Additionally, international advocacy can play a significant role. Human rights organizations and foreign governments must shine a light on such injustices and apply diplomatic pressure on the Russian government to uphold basic rights. Awareness is key—educating the public about the implications of these actions can lead to greater support for those who stand up for their principles.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Petrov, for your insights. This situation is indeed alarming and requires our attention. We hope to see a positive resolution for Dr. Buyanova and meaningful change in Russia’s approach to civil liberties.
Dr. Petrov: Thank you for bringing attention to this issue. It’s essential that we continue these conversations to advocate for those who cannot speak for themselves.