Nordisk socialrättslig
tidskrift

Abstract

In the Nordic countries, medical boards handle patient complaints about health care and have the authority to discipline healthcare professionals who fail to fulfill legal requirements. This article reviews the procedures of the Danish Healthcare Disciplinary Board, highlighting some challenges with ensuring the material correctness of decisions made by the Board and the legal rights of the parties involved throughout the complaint process, from the beginning of the case handling, through investigation and case clarification to the Board’s decision. Attention is drawn to critical points in the disciplinary case process which may merit reconsideration of procedures.

Abstract

The Swedish ethical review system has recently been the subject of debate, particularly for allegedly threatening academic freedom. This paper examines the relationship between ethical review and academic freedom in more detail, showing that it is more complex than often assumed.

Academic freedom grants research institutions and individual researchers a broader scope of action than is typical for public employees and publicly funded bodies. Ethical review clearly limits this freedom, as it may hinder or delay research. If review procedures are too extensive or applied for the wrong reasons, they pose a real threat to academic freedom. Yet academic freedom does not imply that public authorities should fund research without considering ethical or risk-related concerns. Ethical review ensures that the benefits of research outweigh its risks in each individual case. From this perspective, the requirement for review can be understood as supporting the broader freedom granted to researchers and institutions. Ethical review can thus both restrict and safeguard academic freedom.

A recent government bill concerning the Swedish research ethics system proposes that certain categories of minimal‑risk research, which are currently subject to review by the national authority, should be exempted from legal requirements for ethical review. This could be seen as a strengthening of the academic freedom of research institutions. However, for individual researchers, much depends on how research institutions exercise their role. From this perspective, academic freedom could be restricted not only by legal requirements for ethical review, but also by excessive institutional control.

Abstract

Access to primary health care for all children in Norway is central for ensuring all children’s right to health in accordance with Art. 24 and Art. 2 CRC and Art. 12 and Art. 2 ICESCR. Regardless of their residence status, all children in Norway have almost the same right to healthcare. However, irregular migrant children do not have the right to a general practitioner, and access to health care might not be provided if the child is to be sent out of the country soon. Further, reports show that several other factors, including costs of the health care provided, have an impact on whether the child receives the care it is entitled to. The article discusses how far the state’s human rights obligations reach, and whether the state is obliged to give all children equal access to health care.

Abstract

Befolkningens oppfatninger av barns rett til medvirkning er avgjørende for en legitim og vellykket medvirkningspolitikk. Dette er den første spørreundersøkelsen (N=5,073) av de nordiske landenes befolkning som studerer deres oppfatninger av hvordan man kan få frem barns genuine meninger i barnevern- eller barnefordelingssaker for domstolen. Som et hovedfunn viser studien at den nordiske befolkningen støtter at barn blir representert av barnefaglige eksperter og snakker direkte med beslutningstakere, men det er større polarisering når det gjelder advokater. Voksnes paternalisme overfor barn kan begrense barns tilgang på visse medvirkningstyper basert på alders- og kapasitetsnormer, og resultatene viser at paternalistiske holdninger negativt påvirker støtten til både barns direkte medvirkning og advokatrepresentasjon. Til tross for de fem nordiske landenes barnesentrerte systemer, eksisterer det betydelige forskjeller i medvirkningspolitikken mellom landene. Dette fremhever verdien av å undersøke land med lignende systemer, som ofte brukes til å representere samme politiske kontekst. Studiens komparative tilnærming avdekker støtte til medvirkningstyper på tvers av land, som er viktig for beslutningstakere for å sikre legitime ordninger. Funnene viser at landforskjeller i befolkningens oppfatninger ikke er knyttet til den politiske konteksten, dvs. den landspesifikke medvirkningspolitikken. Analysen etterlyser politisk diskusjon om begrensninger for direkte medvirkning basert på alder og sakstype. Videre forskning på mekanismene bak befolkningens oppfatninger og andre politiske kontekster oppfordres.