The head of the Russian Orthodox Church’s commission on family matters, Fyodor Lukyanov, voiced a clear stance on Russia’s use of the WHO disease classifier, arguing that the system identifies ideas and behaviors that clash with traditional values. He shared these views during a roundtable discussion in the State Duma, as reported by TASS and echoed by other observers.
According to Lukyanov, the current classifier runs contrary to Russia’s efforts to safeguard traditional values. He contends that the framework, by its nature, labels certain human behaviors as psychiatric anomalies, which he believes misrepresents cultural norms and religious sensibilities held by many citizens.
He argued that Russia should withdraw from the classifier, at least in part, to avoid reinforcing classifications that he says are at odds with the country’s moral and social priorities. For Lukyanov, this is not a rejection of medical science but a call to ensure that Russia’s public health policies align with its long-standing cultural framework and family-centered priorities.
ICD-11, the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases, is designed to reflect current scientific knowledge and medical practice. Lukyanov’s remarks place ICD-11 in a broader debate about how international medical standards intersect with national values and private life, raising questions about how such classifications influence public policy and social norms.
He also noted that the Russian state continues to implement ICD-11, while urging a partial disengagement from elements he views as incompatible with traditional values. The discussion touches on how Russia balances global medical frameworks with its own historical and cultural context, especially in areas dealing with mental health and behavior.
Earlier reports mentioned a related stance taken by Lukyanov in relation to social media discourse in China, where he called for restrictions on what he described as satanic content. This remark underscores a broader pattern of concerns about how online content is regulated and how moral values are asserted within public life, both at home and abroad. The remarks reflect a broader debate about the role of international health classifications and the limits of biomedical labeling when it intersects with culture and religion, a conversation that continues to evolve with global health standards and domestic policy considerations. (Source: TASS and related reports)