Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

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

Finney, Matilda LU (2026) JURM02 20261
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
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... (More)
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. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Uppsatsen har syftat till att kritiskt granska samtyckesrekvisitet i 16 kapitlet 4 § HSL samt 10 kapitlet 8 och 9 §§ SoL (kallad SIP-bestämmelsen), speciellt i relation till individer med nedsatt beslutsförmåga. Lagtext och dess förarbeten har granskats liksom den praktiska tillämpningen av SIP-bestämmelsen. Dessutom har bestämmelsen satts i ett annat perspektiv genom att samtyckesregleringen i SVOD har jämförts med SIP-bestämmelsen.

Samtycke utgör ett rekvisit för att en individ ska få en samordnad individuell plan (SIP) upprättad. Problematiken med samtyckesrekvisitet uppstår när det ställs i förhållande till individer med nedsatt beslutsförmåga. Detta eftersom individer med nedsatt beslutsförmåga har svårare att ta in information och... (More)
Uppsatsen har syftat till att kritiskt granska samtyckesrekvisitet i 16 kapitlet 4 § HSL samt 10 kapitlet 8 och 9 §§ SoL (kallad SIP-bestämmelsen), speciellt i relation till individer med nedsatt beslutsförmåga. Lagtext och dess förarbeten har granskats liksom den praktiska tillämpningen av SIP-bestämmelsen. Dessutom har bestämmelsen satts i ett annat perspektiv genom att samtyckesregleringen i SVOD har jämförts med SIP-bestämmelsen.

Samtycke utgör ett rekvisit för att en individ ska få en samordnad individuell plan (SIP) upprättad. Problematiken med samtyckesrekvisitet uppstår när det ställs i förhållande till individer med nedsatt beslutsförmåga. Detta eftersom individer med nedsatt beslutsförmåga har svårare att ta in information och därmed lämna ett giltigt samtycke. Eftersom nedsatt beslutsförmåga kan variera från en mindre nedsättning till en total avsaknad behöver inte samtyckesrekvisitet utgöra ett hinder för alla. De med en lättare nedsättning kan genom extra stöd tillvarata information och därmed lämna ett giltigt samtycke, vilket betyder att de kan få tillgång till en SIP. Däremot innebär rekvisitet att personer med en svårare nedsättning som inte kan ge ett giltigt samtycke, inte kan få tillgång till en SIP. Det anses som osannolikt att lagstiftaren avsett att denna grupp inte ska kunna få en SIP men utifrån det krav på samtycke som ställs blir det effekten.

I praktiken finns det visst underlag för att individer som har svårt att lämna ett giltigt samtycke inte får tillgång till en SIP. Samtidigt förstås det att regionerna har en lösningsorienterad inställning angående individer med nedsatt beslutsförmåga. Nästan alla regioner kommenterar att dessa individer ska kunna få en SIP upprättad trots att de inte kan lämna ett giltigt samtycke. Hur denna möjlighet ges varierar dock mellan regionerna, vilket innebär att huruvida en individ med nedsatt beslutsförmåga får en SIP och på vilka grunder beror på var i landet individen bor.

I SVOD finns speciella regleringar angående individer med nedsatt beslutsförmåga som inte kan lämna sitt samtycke. Det betyder att lagstiftaren agerat på ett annat sätt angående individer med nedsatt beslutsförmåga och kravet på samtycke. Utifrån denna reglering kan SIP-bestämmelsen ses i ett annat perspektiv. Det blir extra tydligt att det inte finns några speciella bestämmelser för de som inte kan samtycka i SIP-bestämmelsen. SVOD:s reglering att det är möjligt att lösa den samtyckesproblematik som finns i SIP-bestämmelsen genom att reglera lagstiftningen. Samtidigt visar det på att andra regleringar kommer med andra problem. Således är det inte allt för enkelt att lösa den aktuella samtyckesproblematik som idag finns gällande SIP-bestämmelsen. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Finney, Matilda LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Coordinated individual plan for everyone in need? A critical examination regarding the need for consent in 16:4 hälso- och sjukvårdslag adn 10:8-9 socialtjänstlag
course
JURM02 20261
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Offentlig rätt, Medicinsk rätt, Hälso- och sjukvård
language
Swedish
id
9226843
date added to LUP
2026-06-08 08:32:33
date last changed
2026-06-08 08:32:33
@misc{9226843,
  abstract     = {{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.}},
  author       = {{Finney, Matilda}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{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}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}