Mr Haland sounds like he was having a perfectly normal response to the tyranny of clown world. The people who play pretend with government rules are the crazy ones.
This is what it looks like, eh? No wonder the powers-that-be are onto him.
As an aside, note the utter failure of that county medical examiner (who hasn't read anything about this 'case' before signing off on it) and the hospital's consulting physician (who did much the same)--what else may they have signed off on without reading?
Another angle--question--to ask is what the first responders 'knew' when they knocked on Mr. Håland's door: I doubt they were 'in' on this issue, which renders the actions of the above-mentioned two physicians all the more suspicious: who told them to do this?
Whether or not Håland is mentally ill is of no consequence since none of his behaviour fit the criteria for being incarcerated in the first place; this is impossible to read as anything but a political decision.
‘insight into his illness’ is a beauty of a catch-22 and here in Sweden, it is rarely if ever used anymore simply because it makes it impossible for the patient to ever appear sane and healthy.
Instead, clinicians must describe and recount the patient's statements verbatim if possible, or true to the intent stated by the patient.
I do believe Norway, just as Sweden and Denmark and Finland does, have the concept of „Wahnsinnige aus Rechthaberei“? This has been used in the past to hospitalise "troublesome" persons.
Also, note that this is a classic case of 'shifting responsibility' (essentially: 'he said, she said'), with everyone pointing fingers at 'the system'.
Moreover, everyone claims to have 'followed guidelines' (which are, of course, not mandatory, but you know…).
And, of course, as the NRK 'journo' writes, too, since the content of Mr. Håland's postings didn't matter, his follow-up question should (must) have been: 'why isn't this a case of malpractice?'. The fact that this is the one question that must not be asked speaks volumes…
Malpractice as a legal concept barely exists in any Scandinavian nation in the first place; the attitude from authorities as well as doctors is - and always was - "rotten luck, but since you have 'free' health care you have no right to complain".
Basically, a doctor must purposefully hurt a patient or ignore procedure as a matter of fact, for the disciplinary board to even criticise them in the slightest. There have been cases here in Sweden with MDs writing prescriptions for drugs to known addicts, to the tune of hundreds of morphine-base pills per week - no disciplinary action. A sternly worded letter, maybe.
And as long as the doctor follows protocol as mandated by health care bureaucrats, they are in the clear - otherwise the bureaucracy and by extension the politicians must be in the wrong.
This goes doubly for injury or abuse suffered by way of therapy, medication and being placed in some kind of nursery home or eq.
I thought as much--I've experienced the quite strange 'Nordic' culture in academia, esp. with regard to casual dismissal of guidelines, regulations, and even the law by invocation of 'oh, that's one thing, we do it the other way' (as long as it suits 'them'). This stance quickly swaps once the shoe is on the other foot.
I quite don't get the 'rotten luck' thing, for if my taxes are paying for this, why can't--shouldn't--I demand better care?
The taxes thing is because for most norwegians (and swedes, danes and finns) the notion that the taxes paid is you paying a share of your earnings is alien; instead the sentiment (subconscious) is that it is the state letting you keep some money for yourself, as if it was some kind of allowance.
Harshly put, and it's of course more nuanced than I'm making it out here.
Rotten luck, yes - should have explaine that. Homeblindedness: what I mean is that since the state taxes you for your benefit, the taxes going to public works, this means that when something goes wrong it's always an unfortunate accident and never a consequence of how the state's system works. It is very much akin to how the papacy could speak Ex Cathedra in ages past, if you want a parallell of the mindset it induces.
That's why people who questions the state have so often been called kverulant (querulant); since the state is always right and always acts for your benfit, to question it you must be insane, stupid or wicked - or a combination.
This is much much more ingrained in norwegians than it is in swedes or finns, and even more than in danes, for a simple reason: the norwegian state isn't failing the way Sweden has been doing for ca 20 years now, meaning that peopole here more and more are going through the same process as people in DDR in the 1980s.
All that, plus that the state used to be so much better when people under age 40-50 were born or grew up, so the older someone is, the harder the insight comes to them and also the harder the reflexive impulse of conditioned thought comes to them.
I think you're correct about the Norway-vs-Sweden comparison; I recall noting this somewhere in my postings, i.e., trust in the gov't appears to be partially justified here, although I'd add the qualifier that it's quite easy to throw money around--actually pennies for the plebs, dollars for the few--when you're an emirate. That said, it renders comparisons with other such oil-rich small states interesting, to say the least: what other emirate is as 'nice' and 'fair' as Norway?
Mr Haland sounds like he was having a perfectly normal response to the tyranny of clown world. The people who play pretend with government rules are the crazy ones.
Diagnosis: based and redpilled.
This is what it looks like, eh? No wonder the powers-that-be are onto him.
As an aside, note the utter failure of that county medical examiner (who hasn't read anything about this 'case' before signing off on it) and the hospital's consulting physician (who did much the same)--what else may they have signed off on without reading?
Another angle--question--to ask is what the first responders 'knew' when they knocked on Mr. Håland's door: I doubt they were 'in' on this issue, which renders the actions of the above-mentioned two physicians all the more suspicious: who told them to do this?
Something is very rotten here.
When they say 'whole-of-government' response to covid, they mean it. In Australia and the US it was a military operation. You could start there? https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/theatre-of-war-australias-covid-response
Exactly. I also doubt that this was substantially different elsewhere in 'the West'.
Thanks for the link, I shall cross-post it.
Whether or not Håland is mentally ill is of no consequence since none of his behaviour fit the criteria for being incarcerated in the first place; this is impossible to read as anything but a political decision.
‘insight into his illness’ is a beauty of a catch-22 and here in Sweden, it is rarely if ever used anymore simply because it makes it impossible for the patient to ever appear sane and healthy.
Instead, clinicians must describe and recount the patient's statements verbatim if possible, or true to the intent stated by the patient.
I do believe Norway, just as Sweden and Denmark and Finland does, have the concept of „Wahnsinnige aus Rechthaberei“? This has been used in the past to hospitalise "troublesome" persons.
Also, note that this is a classic case of 'shifting responsibility' (essentially: 'he said, she said'), with everyone pointing fingers at 'the system'.
Moreover, everyone claims to have 'followed guidelines' (which are, of course, not mandatory, but you know…).
And, of course, as the NRK 'journo' writes, too, since the content of Mr. Håland's postings didn't matter, his follow-up question should (must) have been: 'why isn't this a case of malpractice?'. The fact that this is the one question that must not be asked speaks volumes…
Malpractice as a legal concept barely exists in any Scandinavian nation in the first place; the attitude from authorities as well as doctors is - and always was - "rotten luck, but since you have 'free' health care you have no right to complain".
Basically, a doctor must purposefully hurt a patient or ignore procedure as a matter of fact, for the disciplinary board to even criticise them in the slightest. There have been cases here in Sweden with MDs writing prescriptions for drugs to known addicts, to the tune of hundreds of morphine-base pills per week - no disciplinary action. A sternly worded letter, maybe.
And as long as the doctor follows protocol as mandated by health care bureaucrats, they are in the clear - otherwise the bureaucracy and by extension the politicians must be in the wrong.
This goes doubly for injury or abuse suffered by way of therapy, medication and being placed in some kind of nursery home or eq.
I thought as much--I've experienced the quite strange 'Nordic' culture in academia, esp. with regard to casual dismissal of guidelines, regulations, and even the law by invocation of 'oh, that's one thing, we do it the other way' (as long as it suits 'them'). This stance quickly swaps once the shoe is on the other foot.
I quite don't get the 'rotten luck' thing, for if my taxes are paying for this, why can't--shouldn't--I demand better care?
The taxes thing is because for most norwegians (and swedes, danes and finns) the notion that the taxes paid is you paying a share of your earnings is alien; instead the sentiment (subconscious) is that it is the state letting you keep some money for yourself, as if it was some kind of allowance.
Harshly put, and it's of course more nuanced than I'm making it out here.
Rotten luck, yes - should have explaine that. Homeblindedness: what I mean is that since the state taxes you for your benefit, the taxes going to public works, this means that when something goes wrong it's always an unfortunate accident and never a consequence of how the state's system works. It is very much akin to how the papacy could speak Ex Cathedra in ages past, if you want a parallell of the mindset it induces.
That's why people who questions the state have so often been called kverulant (querulant); since the state is always right and always acts for your benfit, to question it you must be insane, stupid or wicked - or a combination.
This is much much more ingrained in norwegians than it is in swedes or finns, and even more than in danes, for a simple reason: the norwegian state isn't failing the way Sweden has been doing for ca 20 years now, meaning that peopole here more and more are going through the same process as people in DDR in the 1980s.
All that, plus that the state used to be so much better when people under age 40-50 were born or grew up, so the older someone is, the harder the insight comes to them and also the harder the reflexive impulse of conditioned thought comes to them.
I think you're correct about the Norway-vs-Sweden comparison; I recall noting this somewhere in my postings, i.e., trust in the gov't appears to be partially justified here, although I'd add the qualifier that it's quite easy to throw money around--actually pennies for the plebs, dollars for the few--when you're an emirate. That said, it renders comparisons with other such oil-rich small states interesting, to say the least: what other emirate is as 'nice' and 'fair' as Norway?
Frightening. Thank you for documenting this.
It's beyond 'frightening'--a clear-cut, multi-dimension tale of abuse and (also journalistic) malpractice that will remain without: justice.
If he had said the full truth - no virus at all - they would have probably kill him.