Erik Strand, 01.08.2023
In a series of articles om the Norwegian online newspaper Steigan.no one has had the opportunity to follow a rather remarkable series of events. In this article one could read that Trond Harald Haaland, a Norwegian man living in the town Stavanger, had been forcibly hospitalised. Haaland has been criticizing the lockdown politics and the way covid 19 vaccines has been used.
The Norwegian law on mental health care (“psykisk helsevernloven) § 3-2 sets up the following criteria for forced observation in the mental health care system:
Ҥ 3-2. Conditions for decisions on compulsory observation
On the basis of information from the medical examination pursuant to Section 3-1, the professional responsible makes an assessment of whether the following conditions for compulsory observation have been met:
- Voluntary mental health care has been attempted, without this having been successful, or it is obviously pointless to attempt this.
- The patient is examined by two doctors, one of whom must be independent of the responsible institution, cf. § 3-1.
- The patient lacks consent competence, cf. Section 4-3 of the Patient and User Rights Act. This condition does not apply in the event of imminent and serious danger to one’s own life or the life or health of others.
- It is predominantly likely that the patient fulfills the conditions for compulsory mental health care according to § 3-3 no. 3.
- The institution is professionally and materially able to offer the patient satisfactory treatment and care and is approved in accordance with § 3-5.
- The patient is given the opportunity to express himself, cf. § 3-9.
- Even if the law’s conditions are otherwise met, forced observation can only take place where, after an overall assessment, this appears to be the clear best solution for the person concerned, unless he or she poses an imminent and serious danger to the life or health of others. During the assessment, particular emphasis must be placed on how much burden the coercive intervention will cause for the person concerned.
Forced observation cannot last longer than 10 days from the start of the examination without the patient’s consent. If the patient’s condition indicates that it is strictly necessary, the deadline can be extended up to 10 days with the consent of the head of the control commission. Transfer to compulsory mental health care can take place before or at the end of this deadline, if the conditions for such care are present.”
In this follow up article by Kjetil Tveit, Tveit writes that he has visited Haaland in the mental hospital, and that he had been allowed to read the hospitalisation papers before they were sent to Haaland’s lawyer, Barbro Paulsen. Tveit commented that there was no mention in the documents of any concrete facts that indicated something that had been, or could be, dangerous for the patient, Trond Harald Haaland, or other people. Tveit also mentions that the political party Norway Democrats (Norgesdemokratene) had issued a press statement about the case.
Tveit continues to comment upon how the case is presented in the hospital’s papers:
“If you feel unfairly and unfairly treated, we humans have a natural reaction pattern for this. If a (very) young doctor and some police constables knock on your door at home and say they want to commit you to a psychiatric clinic because of things you’ve posted on Facebook, it’s perfectly normal to get a little frustrated.
In the admission papers, it is stated that the patient is “covering”, which is a common term used in psychiatry. It could mean that Trond Harald thinks the whole thing is a bit silly or that he is unable to explain it all in a very measured time anyway.
It is mentioned that on one occasion the patient had been “angry” and “rude” towards the attending doctor. If you see this with Trond Harald’s “glasses”; that he is being forcibly hospitalized for no reason. Then perhaps it’s not so strange that on one occasion he was a bit “angry” and “unkind”? A normal reaction is not a signal of a diagnosis.
FALSE TO GIVE A HALF-TRUTH BUT OMIT SOMETHING ESSENTIAL
Trond Harald has always been clear that he wants a lawyer present, either by telephone or physically during a conversation with the investigator, which he is entitled to.
In the admission papers, it is stated that he “rejects an interview” without mentioning that he actually wants an interview, but on terms to which he is entitled, and which the hospital has not yet been able to arrange.
I also believe that this is giving a particularly false picture of the situation in order to, on a false basis, legitimize the forced admission.”
As one could read in this article on July 29, Trond Harald Haaland could leave the hospital as a free man after beeing hospitalised for nine days. After a meeting in the Control Committee, the Control Committee, consisting of three persons, ruled the forced hospitalisation unlawful. When someone is forcibly hospitalised in Norwegian mental health care, they can complain to the Control Committee, which decides if the forced hospitalisation shall be upheld or not.
Kjetil Tveit could report that chief doctor (overlege) used Haaland’s so-called conspiratorial Facebook posts to a very large extent as an argument that he was manic, psychotic paranoid and not reality-oriented given the frequency and content of the posts.
When Haaland’s lawyer asked the chief doctor if she had read the actual Facebook posts, she had replied that she had not read them as she did not have a Facebook account (!)
Tveit mentions that the identity of the person who had voiced concerned about Trond Harald Haaland’s mental health. This case demonstrates that one can be forcibly hospitalised on the basis of an anonymous message and some “conspiratorical” posts in social media that doctors do not bother to read.
Fampo 