2015-07-13

Sweden’s health care system endorses licensed medical doctors to arbitrarily or discriminatorily select their patients without medical or reality-based reasons.

(http://www.nenzen.net/Swedish-healthcare-system.htm)

(http://www.nenzen.net/Stockholm-County-Council-Sweden.htm)

(http://www.nenzen.net/Application-to-qualify-for-Swedish-medical-service.htm)

(http://www.nenzen.net/Health-Care-Inspectorate-Sweden.pdf)

(http://www.nenzen.net/Kvartersakuten-Matteus-Stockholm-refusal-to-explain.JPG)

(http://www.ivo.se/om-ivo/other-languages/english)

In the current reality of Sweden, licensed medical doctors are endorsed to arbitrarily or discriminatorily select their patients, without medical or reality-based reasons. In the reality of the Swedish health care system, people may need to qualify themselves as patients to an ambiguous, arbitrary or capricious standard which is irrelevant to clinical practice guidelines, medical science and reality. In reality, and by endorsement of the Swedish national government’s Health Care Inspectorate (http://www.ivo.se), persons who seek medical services in Sweden can be outlawed from attaining medical services due to discrimination, insinuation and invented accusation.

In the current reality of Sweden, the Swedish healthcare system prevent me from booking an appointment with any licensed medical doctor within Sweden, prohibit me from accessing necessary medical services within Sweden, and prohibit me from obtaining necessary prescription medications within Sweden.

To access public medical services in Sweden, Swedish people are required to be listed with a licensed medical doctor. Last year 2014, the medical doctor where I was listed in Stockholm decided to reject Torsten as a listed patient of the health centre, and the doctor instructed the listed patient Torsten to go elsewhere for access to a doctor. The doctor/manager of the health centre banned Torsten from future access to the health centre. The reasons of banishment from the health centre were the doctor’s insinuations (false accusations) that Torsten was threatening, harassing and persecuting the doctor. However, the doctor would not specify any of the insinuations of threats, harassments or persecution. Torsten officially inquired to the Swedish doctor what the Swedish doctor was specifically referring to, but the Swedish doctor never replied. Torsten therefore made inquiries with various government authorities regarding patient rights within Sweden, and then reported the doctor and the health centre to the national government agency responsible for supervising licensed health care professionals in their professional activities; the Health and Social Care Inspectorate (IVO).

IVO’s legal decision (Dnr 8.2-33420/2014-4) (http://www.nenzen.net/Health-Care-Inspectorate-Sweden.pdf) implicate that Swedish doctors have a legal right to select their patients and to refuse provision of medical service to patients – without requirement of any medical or reality-based reason. Torsten asked if the Swedish doctor could explain the doctor’s insinuations/accusations against Torsten, but the Swedish doctor refused to specify or explain the beneath statement (http://www.nenzen.net/Kvartersakuten-Matteus-Stockholm-refusal-to-explain.JPG):

"I feel scared and threatened. [...] I feel harassed, threatened and persecuted by you. [...] I [can] not be your family doctor and guarantee you a good care. [...] I can not provide care to you anymore. [...] Make use of [1177.se] and look for a different clinic."

- Olga Anikina Redmo, family practitioner and manager of Matthew Health Centre Stockholm (http://www.kvam.nu)

Because Torsten is legally banished from the health centre where Torsten is listed, and because Torsten needs access to laboratory analysis (high glucose, low B12) and needs medications (including medicines for current seasonal allergy), Torsten instead made a visit on July 7, 2015, to Karolinska University Hospital emergency unit in Stockholm. The hospital emergency unit, however, would not accept Torsten’s medical needs as acute, and Torsten was evicted from the hospital. Later the same day, Torsten emailed applications to be listed as a patient to five health centres in Stockholm (http://www.nenzen.net/Application-to-qualify-for-Swedish-medical-service.htm). One of the five health centres replied; informing that their health centre cannot accept new patients and that the waiting list time for new patients is approximately one year. None of the other health centres in Stockholm replied to the email application to be listed as a patient.

Torsten informed about this situation to Stockholm County Council (http://www.sll.se/om-landstinget/Information-in-English1/), which is responsible for all public financed health care in Stockholm. Torsten asked the Council’s opinion; if they believe that Swedish doctors should retain this legal right (implicated by IVO decision No. 8.2-33420/2014-4) to arbitrarily or discriminatorily select the persons who qualify to be listed as their patients, but the Stockholm County Council did not answer this question.

Torsten also asked Stockholm County Council (http://www.nenzen.net/Stockholm-County-Council-Sweden.htm) if the Council believes that Swedish medical doctors should continue to be legally permitted (a) to refuse to provide medical service and (b) to refuse to provide a medical and reality-based reason in making very serious insinuations against patients. Stockholm County Council did not answer these questions either.

The Swedish doctor who refused to explain or specify the insinuations/accusations against Torsten, and who refused to meet the listed patient, and who banished the patient from the Health Centre, was asked by Torsten to explain the insinuations/accusations against Torsten. (http://www.nenzen.net/Kvartersakuten-Matteus-Stockholm-refusal-to-explain.JPG) Because the banishing Swedish doctor refused to explain or specify the insinuations/accusations, the doctor justifies public speculation of the true reason for banishment.