Compulsory somatic health care
Supreme Court judgment 10 June 2021, HR-2021-1263-A, (case no. 21-050130SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
A (Counsel Erik Bryn Tvedt) v. The State represented by the Ministry of Health and Care Services (The Office of the Attorney General represented by Kirsten Berger)
Justices: Skoghøy, Kallerud, Ringnes, Arntzen, Thyness
HR-2021-1263-A
Health law. Competence to consent. Compulsory health care.
A woman who had been subjected to compulsory health care under section 4 A-5 of the Patient Rights Act brought an action requesting that the last decision on compulsory health care be set aside. She had compound and extensive health issues largely caused and strengthened by long-term alcohol abuse. The Supreme Court found that she was not competent to consent under section 4-3 of the Patient Rights Act, and the conditions in section 4 A-3 of the Patient Rights Act were considered met. Compulsory health care was a necessary and proportionate measure to avoid substantial health damage, as a discharge would most likely cause her to fall back into her old drinking pattern, which might have a lethal outcome in the short run. Although she had been retained by force for three years, retention in a somatic health institution still appeared to be the best solution by far for her.