Response to interpellation 2024/25:273 on the duty of disclosure in healthcare
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the duty of information within healthcare and whether healthcare personnel should be exempted from such a law. KD argues that the government and SD agree that healthcare, schools, social services, and libraries should be exempted from the proposed duty of information 1. KD emphasizes that the investigation has judged that increased information exchange should not apply to these sectors 1. S argues that it is pleasing that healthcare personnel are exempted, as they have long been concerned about how the working situation would deteriorate 2. S believes that healthcare should be built on trust and that the right to health must take precedence over everything else 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Acko Ankarberg Johansson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I have been asked if I can guarantee that healthcare personnel are exempted in a law on the duty of information and what concessions the government has made to the Sweden Democrats, since they are now saying that they are satisfied with the outcome of the negotiation.
The investigation on strengthened return activities submitted its final report Certain measures for strengthened return activities and alien control (SOU 2024:80) on 26 November 2024. The investigation has been tasked with reviewing parts of the regulatory framework linked to return and proposing measures aimed at strengthening return activities for those who have an enforceable decision on rejection or deportation.
The investigation proposes, among other things, an increased exchange of information for a number of authorities, in order to strengthen the work of enforcing removal decisions and countering illegal stay in the country. The investigation assesses that the increased exchange of information should not apply to healthcare, schools, and social services. Libraries are also not included among the actors identified for the increased exchange of information.
The government and the coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna agree that healthcare, schools, social services, and libraries shall be exempted from the proposed duty of information. Furthermore, the government will continue to implement what has been agreed upon in the Tidö Agreement.
Yasmine Bladelius (S)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the Minister for Health and Care for the answer. It is naturally pleasing that it now appears that the government and the Sweden Democrats have finally landed on that the health and care services, the schools, the social services, and the libraries shall be exempted from a law on the duty of information.
Exempting healthcare personnel from a reporting law is an issue that I know the Minister for Health and Social Affairs has pushed strongly – just as strongly as the Sweden Democrats' Jimmie Åkesson has pushed that they should be covered by such a law. Sweden Democrat members have even said that it should be punishable to not report people without residence permits to the police. It is therefore, of course, very pleasing that the government in this issue in any case has not given in to the Sweden Democrats.
Mr. Speaker! I know for certain that many within the aforementioned professions, which the investigator now proposes should be exempted from an information obligation law, breathed a deep sigh of relief there and then during the press conference. For very many, it was likely a breath they had been holding in for a long time.
For a long time, healthcare staff have agonized and worried. For a long time, they have wondered: How will our working situation change and deteriorate with the proposal to introduce a duty to report information in healthcare? Shall I, as an obstetrician, deliver the pregnant woman and welcome the newborn child to the world one second, only to call the police on them the next second because they lack a residence permit? Or shall I, as an emergency nurse, first save someone's life only to send the Swedish Migration Agency after them in the next second?
Many questions, much fear and much anxiety have we heard from the healthcare staff. And many voices have been raised from both healthcare staff and trade unions as well as regional and municipal politicians who have pleaded with the government not to move forward with the proposal on the duty of information in welfare.
We in the opposition have also been very clear: Let the welfare staff be spared such a law! It is fundamentally about what kind of society we want.
In Sweden, we have a healthcare system that should be built on trust and confidence. No one should have to hesitate to seek care for fear of being reported. Healthcare is a place where people's right to life and health must take precedence over everything else.
Mr. Speaker! Now we have received information from the Minister and the Government, and my question was whether the Minister can guarantee that what was said at the press conference and what the Minister says here today will now take place. Can the healthcare staff breathe a sigh of relief and let this matter go? Is this the Minister's definitive statement? And will healthcare staff within the private sector also be covered by the statement? If the answer is yes to these questions, Mr. Speaker, I will not take the debate further in this chamber.
Statsrådet Acko Ankarberg Johansson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the question being raised so that there are no doubts.
Let me start by complicating things a bit. There is a duty of disclosure today, at very specific occasions: when children are at risk of harm or have been harmed. The question is therefore not new for healthcare personnel, but it concerns a completely different dimension. The question of both saving lives and then doing something else exists in healthcare.
Even though everyone thinks this is obvious, I want to point out that it is a difficulty. When one is to assess whether there is a risk that a child will come to harm, one is not certain, but it is precisely about a judgment. This is a difficult dilemma for healthcare personnel, not least at children's clinics. One naturally wants to have the opportunity to report if a child is at risk of coming to harm, but it is difficult.
This also shows that there are many ethical considerations when introducing these kinds of things, which in some ways can seem good but also have a downside.
Regarding this issue, just like many others, we have the position that it must be investigated, so that we have a basis. The investigator was very clear: This is not appropriate. It is as it should be that the investigator speaks about what works and what does not work.
But we did something a bit unusual. We had, in fact, had the opportunity to read the underlying material and could already at the press conference speak about that we would follow the investigator's proposal. We would, therefore, not do anything other than what the investigator suggested. We did not think there was time for referrals and discussion when we were actually in agreement. All four parties thus did as we always do: We read the investigation, assessed how it looked, talked, and reached a result.
I am very pleased that we were able to give the announcement so quickly. Just as the member says, it means that one can set aside this issue, which involves difficult ethical considerations.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.