Samordnad individuell plan för alla med behov? - En kritisk undersökning av samtyckesrekvisitet i 16 kapitlet 4 § hälso- och sjukvårdslag samt 10 kapitlet 8 och 9 §§ socialtjänstlag

Sammanfattning

This essay set out to critically examine the need for consent regarding the possibility to obtain a coordinated individual plan (SIP). This is covered in a legal provision I refer to as the SIP-provision. It is analysed in relation to individuals with impaired decision-making capacity. The legal provision as well as preparatory works has been explored and there is also the aspect of how the provision is applied in society. Lastly a comparison with the legal work in another Swedish law (SVOD) has been made to see the SIP-provision in another perspective. An individual must consent for a SIP to be created. This is problematic in relation to individuals with impaired decision-making capacity since they have a challenge understanding information and thus not being able to give a valid consent. The impaired decision-making capacity can vary between a minor impairment to an almost non-existing decision-making capacity. The consent demand is not necessarily a problem for those with a minor impairment. Those with a minor impairment can, with some extra support, understand the information given and thereby give a valid consent. This means that they can get a SIP. However, people with severe impaired decision-making capacity cannot understand even simple information and therefore are not able to give a valid consent. This means that the need for consent, that is established in the SIP-provision, has the effect that those who cannot give a valid consent cannot get a SIP. It is unlikely that the legislator aims to hinder these people from getting a SIP, but it is the effect based on how the law is written. In society, almost every region comment that everyone with a need should have the right to get a SIP, even if they cannot consent to it. However, on which grounds this is possible varies between the regions. The effect is that individuals with impaired decision-making capacity may still get a SIP, but it depends on where in the country the individual is living. The comparison between the SIP-provision and SVOD provides the insight that the legislator has acted differently regarding the need for consent. In SVOD, there are special provisions for people who cannot give a valid con-sent. This further proves that such provision does not exist within the SIP-provision. However, the provisions in SVOD shows that it is possible to legislate in such a way that the existing problem with the need for consent disappears. Though, these provisions come with their own problems and shows that it is not as easy to solve the existing problem regarding the need for consent in the SIP-provision as one might hope.