Acquitted school doctors who practice healing and homeopathy follows the EU rules

Health minister of Sweden reacted heavily on the result of an investigation that exonerated the school doctor who practiced homeopathy and another school doctor acquitted even who used healing as complementary treatment. Support was found within the EU framework. Most European countries’ healthcare practice both healing and homeopathy, it turns out. There is something not debaters of Swedish traditional healthcare does not please. 

Text translated with Google Translate thus grammatical errors.

Those debates are just those who shout loudest while most of the majority probably think that alternative treatment methods should be tested and applied. Otherwise, a majority of Swedish health professionals and Swedish politicians gone through the roof. Because they are not done, we can assume that there is a small group of conservative people who pretend to represent the majority of noisy most.

Below Anders Pettersson’s own words about the Board’s handling of the case

Falsely accused of  National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) – Welfare refuses to disclose evidence to the charge.

Anders Pettersson – Socialstyrelsen examined me because of a talk I gave in 2004 about homeopathy. No patient has ever reported me.

Welfare in Örebro States and accuses me without accounting basis, because I would have withheld school medical treatment in several cases. This is not true.

For example, patient No. 1 in a woman with chronic hand eczema among other things prescribed cortisone creams, moisturizers, sick leave and referral specialist treatment in hospital and the other (patient No. 20), a woman with verucca senilis (harmless brown ”talgvårtor”) on the back, which scraped off by conventional means.

Both were then customary school medical treatment, which was also documented in the records back in 2003.

Moreover, the Medical Association consultant in dermatology professor Rorsman, Department of Dermatology in Lund and HSAN (Management Board) in 2005 that patient cases 1 and 20 was clearly approved school medical care exists.

Despite these facts recur Welfare 2010 05 05 in writing and state now, without basis, that such patients 1 and 20 not enjoyed any conventional medical treatment. National Board serious accusation is difficult to interpret in any other way than to Welfare states declare that I withheld the patients skolmedicnsk treatment they really would have had, and that I therefore do not run my job.

On 23 September 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court frees me completely

Supreme Administrative Court (No. 6634/10) eliminates Thus HSAN’s (Management Board), the County Administrative Court and the Administrative Court convictions, rejects completely the Board’s allegations unless I have worked as ”science and proven experience” and writes up to school medically, I have handled all patient cases in an appropriate manner. Corresponding already have provincial court of appeal and wrote in his decision.
Quote from the Supreme Administrative Court:

Page 7: ”The Board has in the present case did not claim that AA is guilty of medical errors in the form of questionable diagnoses or failure to arrange for school medical treatment to the extent that has been called for (cf. RAW 2009 ref. 65).”

Page 8: ”Any case where a patient has lost or risked not getting adequate school medical treatment as a result of AA’s actions have not been demonstrated.”

I have twice written request to see documentation to the Board’s serious and strange and insulting accusation 2010 05 05, but the National Board refuses so far to account for any surface.

Accidents at work by the National Board? Subjective perceptions? Prejudice? Not occurs well baseless and even false accusations of Welfare?

Comments on the rule of law:

I believe and assume that most agencies do a good job, working impartially and legally secure incl. relevant reasons for the decisions. But the ambiguity must be a rule have the right to see the evidence for an indictment, and within a reasonable time, otherwise legal uncertainty.

In the current case, the National Board including refuses to disclose evidence to the charge, then it is unfortunately difficult to free themselves from the idea that the National Board has committed serious errors, and come with a suspected false and defamatory information and by refusing information under the Act to the charge.

Who examines the social board?

Are there others who have been through something similar? Wherever one turns to see any evidence, then the National Board refuses to disclose them. To which authority you should contact if there really would be a serious, baseless accusation? And who examines Welfare? It would be interesting to get comments of insightful analysts. We must defend our right to legal certainty.

Background information: Opinion 2010 10:05 a.m. Welfare Orebro (reg. 9.4.3-13805/2010). Prof. helmsman opinion from 2005 11 10. HSAN 2961/04. Supreme Administrative Court No. 6634-10 2011 09 23rd The documents are available from resp. authority.

Anders Pettersson MD

Stig Björne