Sweden’s Healthcare system endorses licensed medical doctors to arbitrarily or discriminatorily select their patients without medical or reality-based reasons. Consequently, an innocent citizen in Sweden is still banished from attaining primary healthcare anywhere within Sweden.










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.


A specific example in Sweden of a Swedish citizen outlawed from healthcare within Sweden is Torsten. A Swedish medical doctor who is health centre manager insinuated that Torsten is too dangerous for permission to receive healthcare at the health centre where Torsten was listed. The doctor/manager of the health centre hence instructed Torsten to go elsewhere. The Swedish doctor/manager had insinuated that Torsten persecuted, threatened and harassed the doctor/manager. Because Torsten is absolutely innocent in relation to the insinuations made against him by the Swedish doctor/manager, Torsten contacted Sweden’s Health and Social Care Inspectorate (IVO) with a request for investigation and prosecution against the defamation and medical malpractice. Swedish IVO, however, sanctioned the doctor’s/manager’s refusal to provide healthcare to Torsten without investigation. The Swedish doctor/manager had insinuated that Torsten is too dangerous to be a patient, and therefore the Swedish Health Care Inspectorate was satisfied (without investigation) that Torsten in fact is too dangerous to receive healthcare, and IVO subsequently sanctioned the healthcare ban against Torsten by the health centre doctor/manager.


A Swedish doctor/manager insinuated that Torsten is too dangerous to seek healthcare, and therefore, the Swedish doctor’s insinuation is factual and true. When Torsten in writing asked the Swedish doctor/manager to explain the insinuations, the Swedish doctor refused to provide an explanation. When Torsten requested that the Swedish government healthcare inspectorate (IVO) should investigate (and prosecute), IVO instead sanctioned the healthcare ban in their refusal to investigate.


The Swedish government agency IVO could have inquired with the Swedish doctor/manager what Torsten allegedly had done or said to justify the insinuations that Torsten would be threatening, harassing and persecuting. In Sweden, however, no person asked the basic questions: What has Torsten done? What has Torsten said? In Sweden, no person is interested to obtain facts or truth.


A Swedish doctor has insinuated something untrue and derogative about an innocent person, and therefore the insinuations are true in Sweden. No questions asked. No investigation. End of story.


Consequent to the utter lies (false insinuations) and banishment by a Swedish medical doctor/manager, and subsequent to the absence of professional accountability of medical malpractice and absence of legal accountability of defamation, the innocent person Torsten is outlawed from the Swedish healthcare system. Nowhere in Sweden is Torsten permitted to attain healthcare. When Torsten consequently sought healthcare instead at a hospital emergency unit to obtain blood tests for high glucose and low B12, the hospital evicted Torsten from the hospital because such primary healthcare is not permitted at an emergency unit. And when Torsten consequently sought primary healthcare by applying for acceptance to qualify as a listed patient to any medical doctor at 15 primary healthcare Health Centres in Stockholm, none of the 15 Health Centres in Stockholm would expressly welcome Torsten.


Torsten sent an email application to health centres in Stockholm, Sweden, seeking acceptance to qualify as a listed patient to any medical doctor. No primary healthcare Health Centre in Sweden currently permit/welcome Torsten to seek healthcare through a medical doctor at their Health Centre. It is likely that the Swedish doctors/managers of all primary healthcare Health Centres in Sweden presume that Torsten is too dangerous. After all, a Swedish colleague in the medical business at Kvartersakuten Matteus Health Centre (http://www.kvam.nu) insinuated (accused) that Torsten is too dangerous to visit Matteus Health Centre, and logically, if Torsten is too dangerous to be a listed patient in one health centre then Torsten is probably too dangerous to be listed as a patient in any health centre.


These are the most recent Health Centres in Stockholm which also refused to explicitly welcome Torsten to be listed as a patient:


1.             Aleris Vårdcentral Stureplan in Stockholm, Sweden: http://www.nenzen.net/Aleris-Vardcentral-Stureplan-Stockholm-Sweden.htm


2.             Banérgatans Husläkarmottagning in Stockholm, Sweden: http://www.nenzen.net/Banergatans-Huslakarmottagning-Stockholm-Sweden.htm


3.             Capio Vårdcentral Östermalm in Stockholm, Sweden: http://www.nenzen.net/Capio-Vardcentral-Ostermalm-Stockholm-Sweden.htm


4.            Capio Vårdcentralen Slussen in Stockholm, Sweden: http://www.nenzen.net/Capio-Vardcentral-Slussen-Stockholm-Sweden.htm


5.             CityAkuten Husläkarmottagning in Stockholm, Sweden: http://www.nenzen.net/CityAkuten-Huslakarmottagning-Stockholm-Sweden.htm


6.             Fridhemsplans Vårdcentral in Stockholm, Sweden: http://www.nenzen.net/Fridhemsplans-Vardcentral-Stockholm-Sweden.htm


7.             Hötorgets Vårdcentral in Stockholm, Sweden: http://www.nenzen.net/Hotorgets-Vardcentral-Stockholm-Sweden.htm


8.             Kungsholmsdoktorn in Stockholm, Sweden: http://www.nenzen.net/Kungsholmsdoktorn-Stockholm-Sweden.htm


9.             Kvartersakuten Tegnérgatan in Stockholm, Sweden: http://www.nenzen.net/Kvartersakuten-Tegnergatan-Stockholm-Sweden.htm


10.         Lill-Jans Husläkarmottagning in Stockholm, Sweden: http://www.nenzen.net/LillJans-Huslakarmottagning-Stockholm-Sweden.htm


11.         Serafen Kvartersakuten in Stockholm, Sweden: http://www.nenzen.net/Serafen-Kvartersakuten-Stockholm-Sweden.htm


12.         Sibyllekliniken Husläkarmottagning in Stockholm, Sweden: http://www.nenzen.net/Sibyllekliniken-Huslakarmottagning-Stockholm-Sweden.htm



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 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). A couple of health centres replied; informing that their health centres cannot accept new patients and that the waiting list time for new patients is at least one year.


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 offer healthcare to the listed patient, and who banished the patient from the Kvartersakuten Matteus Health Centre (http://www.kvam.nu), was asked in writing 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/manager refused to explain or specify the insinuations/accusations, the doctor/manager has justified public speculation of the true reason for the doctor’s banishment of the patient.



Torsten’s public speculation:

The sentiments of post-secular Sweden is predominantly anti-Christian. Upon most visits to Kvartersakuten Matteus Health Centre (http://www.kvam.nu) in Stockholm, Torsten left one or two Christian tracts in the patient waiting room among the reading magazines. In the Health Centre is also situated a notice board, where Torsten upon two visits had pinned a Christian tract titled “Wings over Zion” (http://www.wmpress.org/woz_text/english_woz_bklt.pdf). In conjunction with Torsten’s regular street evangelism in Stockholm on a frequented public street where Torsten often is positioned, the banishing Swedish doctor/manager had walked past Torsten on two separate occasions, and on both occasions also the passing-by doctor/manager had been politely offered a tract. Maybe, other patients or staff had complained to the Health Centre management that there had repeatedly been a Christian tract in the waiting room and on the notice board. Presence of Christian information within the Swedish Health Centre may have been perceived from a business perspective as a threat. From multiple surveys we know that Swedish people are among the most hostile to God and are adversarial to Biblical values. (http://www.worldvaluessurvey.us/WVSContents.jsp?CMSID=Findings), (http://www.kyrkor.be/WVS2015-Important_in_life_Religion.pdf), (http://www.kyrkor.be/WVS2015-Believe_in_God.pdf) It is plausible that the Swedish doctor/manager felt threatened by the Biblical Christianity which Torsten presents in public (including a tract on a notice board and in the waiting room of the Health Centre), but that the doctor/manager confounded the doctor’s professional role with the doctor’s personal/spiritual sentiment, and/or the doctor confounded the doctor’s professional role with the doctor/manager’s business interest as a manager.