In Rostov-on-Don, a radiologist sparked a sharp public discussion by targeting Mila Litvinova, a blogger who speaks openly about living with HIV and advocates for the rights of people with the condition. The remarks were brought to light by the Telegram channel Attention, news, which monitors online exchanges and the way medical professionals engage with patients in social spaces. The incident highlights how professional status can become a factor in online controversy and how sensitive questions about health can spill into personal life disputes. Readers worldwide watched as a medical figure crossed a line that many feel should be reserved for the clinic, not the comment section of a video blog.
Under one of Litvinova’s videos a comment was traced to a Rostov-on-Don physician named Arthur Ikilikyan. The post appeared in a thread that mixed curiosity, aggression, and a stubborn insistence on prying into private health matters. The exchange touched on topics of infection and life choices, revealing how some observers treat HIV as a matter of personal judgment rather than medical concern. The situation drew attention to the boundaries between professional responsibility and public dialogue, and to how easily hurtful language can be masked as questions in online spaces.
“So, tell me, how did you get infected? Did you open your heels?” the message asked, turning a deeply personal medical question into a sensational line. The remark was widely criticized for its intrusive tone and its implication that a health condition could be explained by sexual or moral impropriety. The backlash reflected broader debates about respect, consent, and empathy when people living with HIV share their stories online. For Litvinova, such inquiries felt like a violation and a public shaming that many HIV advocates seek to oppose.
Later in the same thread, observers noted that the physician pressed Litvinova to disclose whether the infection had occurred during her marriage. Critics argued that turning a health status into a topic for marital gossip crosses a line of privacy and dignity. Supporters, meanwhile, argued that some questions are meant to illuminate risks and preventive behaviors. Still, the tone suggested an approach that many people living with HIV experience as invasive and demeaning, rather than constructive debate about awareness, prevention, and rights.
Litvinova described her situation plainly: she lives with HIV and maintains a blog to discuss the rights and needs of those living with the virus. She said she faces aggression in online spaces, and she emphasized that individuals in the medical field do not always mirror the respectful tone expected in patient interactions. Her message underscored a ongoing challenge: to share lived experience with honesty while guarding against mockery, stigma, and personal attacks that have historically marginalized people in this community.
Ikilikyan said he did not intend to encourage harassment against Litvinova or others living with HIV. He announced plans to participate in a detailed interview to explain his position and to discuss broader issues around how medical professionals should engage with public narratives. He also expressed astonishment at the scale of negativity from some Instagram users, noting that Meta, the platform’s owner, has faced restrictions in Russia for policy concerns. The exchange illustrated how social media can bend professional boundaries and amplify disputes beyond the clinic’s walls.
In his further comments, the physician insisted that he has never called for hatred toward people with HIV/AIDS. He argued that his objections were aimed at a perceived trend—an assertive stance framed as body autonomy—that he believed was being presented in ways that could overshadow medical realities. He acknowledged the awkwardness of the moment and admitted that the environment around the discussion had become uncomfortable for many involved. At the same time, he highlighted the pressure his colleagues face, noting that clinicians often endure months of stress and frequently undergo repeat testing in a climate that can feel frightening.
On another point, the doctor conceded that he asked Litvinova about how she had contracted the virus in a rude tone. He contended that not every post requires a polished, clinical tone, and he argued for the freedom to discuss sensitive topics with direct language in certain contexts. The exchange raised important questions about boundaries, professional ethics, and the balance between curiosity and respect when doctors engage with patients who share personal health stories in public forums.
Separately, well-known surgeon Khaidarov faced accusations of pressuring a patient who suffered injuries in his clinic, a claim that sparked discussion about accountability, consent, and the responsibilities of medical professionals when public scrutiny intersects with patient experiences. Earlier in the discourse, Elena Vorobey commented on topics that should never be joked about in public, a reminder that health humor can cross lines and harm people living with real conditions. Taken together, these episodes reflect a broader conversation about stigma, empathy, and the role of medical voices in shaping public understanding of illness.