The committee’s meeting ended in evasion and denial of responsibility

Beautification of the Report for the Formal Committee: A Mechanism to Conceal Violations and Manipulate Facts

When the case reached the Control Commission, the objective was not to hold the hospital accountable or investigate the violations, but rather to contain the scandal and give it a formal, seemingly independent façade. From the outset, it was clear that the oversight process was not objective, but a bureaucratic procedure designed to polish the external narrative while leaving the actual abuses unaddressed.

The chair of the commission, Elisabeth Grøndahl, demonstrated from the beginning a clear avoidance of her supervisory responsibilities, repeatedly excusing herself in every communication by saying she “was at the airport.” During the meeting itself, it became evident that she was prepared to interrupt and terminate the session. The focus was on presenting a linguistically edited report, rather than discussing the original report, which contained grossly unprofessional expressions, shocking contradictions, and undocumented allegations. This revision was purely formal, intended to mask the real motives and to avoid addressing the violations.

A Doctor Without Connection: A Symbolic Alibi Used to Cover Up Violations and Shift Responsibility

The leadership of the psychiatric department at Diakonhjemmet Sykehus brought in a doctor with an immigrant background, an uncommon occurrence in this department. The doctor was used as a front figure to present a new report. The purpose of this report was not to provide an independent medical assessment but to lend an appearance of legitimacy to a document that had already been prepared, shifting responsibility onto someone who had no knowledge of the case.

During the meeting, after the doctor realized that the case was suspicious and contained multiple irregularities, he openly admitted that he:

• had no knowledge of the events,

• had never met the affected person,

• had performed no clinical assessment, and

• had written the report based on instructions from the hospital administration.

This development transforms the report into an administrative document supporting decisions that were already made, rather than an objective medical evaluation.

The question that cannot be ignored:
Why was a doctor, who has no connection to the case, involved as the face for preparing a report that lacks scientific basis, is biased, and lacks credibility, and is incapable of assessing the actual circumstances? How can such a report be considered reliable or objective, while the medical team hid and refused to confront the affected individual after carrying out the forced detention and preparing their retaliatory reports?

Testified on 05 December 2025

What took place within the framework of the Oslo health authorities between 2022 and 2025 can be described as a series of organized, troubling, and unprofessional practices. Certain healthcare institutions, which are meant to provide care and treatment, operate in accordance with the law and medical ethics, safeguard human dignity, adhere to the principle of non-maleficence and informed consent, and remain free from personal loyalties, instead developed authoritarian tendencies that raise concern and prompt serious questions about the governance of medical authority. In some cases, loyalty to those in charge was placed above the law, presenting a troubling picture of authorities that should protect citizens rather than pursue them.

Such actions are difficult for healthcare personnel, municipal authorities, or hospitals to carry out without some form of encouragement or support from members of oversight committees, highlighting the importance of independent monitoring and accountability at all levels to ensure power is exercised responsibly.

What is the value of a “medical” report that is not grounded in medical or humanistic principles, written in a way that does not reflect ethical standards, and issued by an institution with a history of abuse?

What is the reliability of diagnoses or medical assessments provided by a doctor lacking balance and self-control, whose personal agenda is shaped by predetermined instructions, while his clear bias reveals an exploitation of medical authority to control the lives of journalists and individuals, overstep human ethical boundaries, and turn the healthcare sector into a tool for suppressing their rights, dignity, and freedom of speech?

When reports contain overtly unethical comments, vindictive accusations, and false claims, and the document transforms from a scientific tool into an authoritarian instrument for coercion or extortion to hide facts, it becomes clear that the assessment has deviated from its scientific, ethical, and medical course.

How can one trust a medical team that evades responsibility, avoids meetings with affected citizens or oversight authorities, and hides behind administrative offices instead of facing the consequences of its decisions? How can such a team be taken seriously when it transfers responsibility to a doctor with no connection to the case, merely to avoid an open and uncomfortable confrontation?

Healthcare institutions built on trust and integrity cannot permit such deviations without conducting thorough and independent reviews that ensure the integrity of the medical process and protect individual rights.

When healthcare institutions and higher health authorities in Oslo become part of the escalation, and a system intended to protect patients is in some cases used as a means of pressure, an administrative pattern emerges that resembles closed networks exploiting their power to silence critics and conceal the truth.

Instead of a full and objective investigation into the highlighted violations, certain higher-level oversight bodies participated in measures that can be perceived as escalating, perhaps due to misunderstandings or differing assessments, in a way that may give the impression that prior pending measures were given a green light.

Oslo municipal health authorities, from municipal doctors through administration, the emergency chief, and Diakonhjemmet Hospital, which had previously acknowledged errors and attempted to correct deviations, have suddenly been given approval, and it is now they who sign the official, punitive, and unethical decisions that reveal the truth about the events and those behind them.

They often take rapid and clear positions, especially when confronted with situations involving documented violations by a doctor who exploited weaknesses in the complaint system of the County Governor in Oslo.

Even though oversight authorities publicly emphasize that their role is to protect patients, investigate complaints, and strengthen public trust, these events raise questions about whether the principles have been fully followed.

This development reflects a different reality and raises fundamental questions:

Have the authorities performed their actual role?

Have they handled complaints seriously, or have they relied too heavily on the doctor’s version, which claims all his patients lie while he himself falsifies his assessments?

Are the decisions and responses in line with principles that apply to all, or is there unequal application of regulations?

Available official documents, letters, and responses in the case, whether published or not, provide clear indications: the citizen submitted documents, recordings, letters, and precise dates. The other party responded with denial or avoidance, evading responsibility in correspondence. Additionally, the citizen was subjected to incitement to violence against them, sedation, and forced relocation in an obvious attempt to silence and intimidate.

These events demonstrate how power can be used in ways that undermine the truth and highlight clear weaknesses in investigative mechanisms since 2022. The use of power, involuntary admission, and exploitation of personal identity and medical records as means of oppression underscores the urgent need for independent and effective oversight. This case is not an isolated incident but a powerful reminder of the importance of ensuring transparency and accountability, and a call to all to protect rights and freedoms in Oslo and beyond.

"The events that took place during the meeting of the control commission reveal the need to establish an independent committee to investigate manipulation and bias, in order to ensure integrity and transparency in the processes."

In a broader context: Abuse of medical authority as a punitive tool

What is revealed here shows an institutional pattern:

• medical reports are written in advance without clinical basis,

• coercion is used without medical necessity,

• closed patient records are reopened by involved staff,

• and oversight processes are manipulated to prevent accountability.

This aligns with the international concept of “Punitive Psychiatry,” where psychiatry is used for pressure and sanctioning, not treatment.

Analytical summary

The material exposes a closed system that operates through self-protective mechanisms rather than accountability.

• Oversight committees are used as formal shells to legitimize predetermined decisions.

• Psychiatry is used as a tool of intimidation rather than a treatment method based on science and ethics.

• Lawyers and supervisory bodies are misled or excluded to prevent access to information.

• Those truly responsible hide behind administrative facades without consequences.

This undermines trust in the health and legal systems in Oslo and clearly shows the need for an independent and comprehensive review.

To understand the gravity of the patterns revealed in this case, it is necessary to view them in light of historical experiences with the abuse of psychiatry as an instrument of power.

History shows that the misuse of medical authority to label individuals as “mentally ill” for unprofessional or political purposes is not a new phenomenon. As reflected in this case, multiple historical examples show that psychiatry has been used over time as a tool to suppress and delegitimize individuals.

In the former Soviet Union, the so, called punitive psychiatric system was used to classify political dissidents as having “sluggish schizophrenia,” depriving them of freedom and leading to involuntary hospitalization in psychiatric institutions without scientific basis. In Nazi Germany, psychiatric diagnoses were used to legitimize the T4 program, which involved forced sterilizations, abuse, and in many cases the killing of thousands of people labeled as “unworthy of life.”

Scandinavia also has dark chapters: in both Sweden and Denmark during the 20th century, extensive programs of forced sterilization were carried out on individuals defined as “mentally weak” or “mentally ill.” These assessments were often based on social and political criteria rather than medical standards, aiming to control the composition of society.

These historical examples show a clear pattern: when psychiatry deviates from its scientific principles, it can become a tool of power and revenge. Misuse of medical authority has historically led to deprivation of liberty, involuntary commitment, loss of civil rights, and in the worst cases, loss of life.

Historical experiences with the abuse of psychiatry as a political and social tool, as well as an authoritarian, oppressive, and intimidating instrument, provide a clear example of what can happen when medical authority departs from scientific standards. Events that have occurred in Ullern, Frogner, Aker Emergency Department, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, and the Adult Psychiatric Department at Vinderen in Oslo illustrate how a lack of integrity, transparency, and adherence to scientific principles in medical practice can harm people, restrict freedom, deprive rights, and impose unjustified coercive measures.

At the same time, amid neglect and silence from health authorities, including the County Governor in Oslo, who holds overarching supervisory responsibility, the risk increases that individuals’ rights will be violated. This shows that the phenomenon is not only theoretical or historical but has real consequences in today’s healthcare system in Oslo, underscoring the urgent need for effective oversight and strict enforcement of scientific, ethical, and legal standards in medical practice to ensure that medical authority is never used to harm people or undermine their rights.

Misleading the Lawyers: An Attempt to Conceal the Outcome of the Meeting

After the meeting, the commission chair, Elisabeth Grøndahl, carried out a series of actions that indicate deliberate manipulation. She refused to provide the meeting’s outcome to either the lawyers or the affected individual.
When the affected person called her, she claimed she did not remember the case, while at the same time admitting that the case had been decided in the hospital’s favor immediately after the meeting.

She then stated that the case had been sent directly to lawyer Erlend Liaklev Andersen.

Lawyers Erlend Liaklev Andersen and Arne Petter Byre Sandvik were subsequently met with delays and silence, reflecting a clear unwillingness to ensure transparency or accountability. This is not an isolated incident, but part of a system that protects itself.

Through a phone call, the head of the Control Commission, Elisabeth Grøndahl, confirmed that the decision was delivered immediately after the committee meeting to lawyer Erlend Liaklev Andersen. Later, via SMS, Grøndahl informed the affected person to contact the relevant lawyer for updates.

These messages came after a series of repeated emails from the affected person, following unjustified silence, but Grøndahl failed to respond from the committee meeting date on September 11, 2025, until November 6, 2025, when a follow-up message was sent after a deliberate delay.

This illustrates how difficult it is to achieve transparency and formal follow up from the commission.

On November 19, 2025, lawyer Erlend Liaklev Andersen informed that he had not received any response or copy of the committee's decision, which clearly demonstrates ongoing difficulties in accessing official documents related to the case.

On November 25, 2025, lawyer Erlend Liaklev Andersen’s office contacted committee chair Elisabeth Grøndahl via email again to request any documents or a copy of the committee’s decision.

Despite claims from the committee chair that the decision was delivered immediately after the committee meeting to Erlend Liaklev Andersen, the correspondence shows that no decision has reached any of the lawyers, Erlend Liaklev Andersen and Arne Petter Byre Sandvik, or the affected individual themselves.

In the period from September 11 to November 6, 2025, multiple follow-up messages were sent without response, and even after repeated attempts at contact, the committee continued to refuse to provide any information or official documents. This clearly demonstrates a deliberate strategy to withhold information and obstruct transparency, highlighting the lack of openness and accountability in the committee’s handling.

The committee chair has refused to communicate with the lawyers or to provide any documents related to the case. This is clearly demonstrated through the repeated attempts made by attorney Arne Petter Byre Sandvik, who tried multiple times to contact the committee without receiving any response. Even after attempting to reach other members of the Control Commission, it has proven extremely difficult to obtain access to official information.

Acknowledgment and Measures Implemented by Diakonhjemmet Hospital

On August 28, 2025, Diakonhjemmet Hospital acknowledged having reopened the medical record of the affected individual, which had previously been officially closed, providing justifications that are not legally defensible.

What is concerning is that this action did not occur in isolation; the timeline and available evidence suggest a certain level of support and insight from the highest health authorities at the County Governor’s office in Oslo. The reopening of the record occurred after complaints regarding the doctor who had influenced authorities were presented, and there was collaboration with the doctor to use the affected individual’s medical record as a tool of pressure to force silence and prevent documents and facts from being made public, while granting the doctor exclusive access to the record.

The incident exposes significant weaknesses in oversight, where the formal justifications provided a veneer of legitimacy, even though they did not address the actual violations. This makes responsibility shared between the hospital and the authorities that approved the action.

Exploitation and Legal Violations

The medical record that was reopened was used as a tool for data manipulation and pressure against the affected individual. This action was neither random nor unplanned, but resulted from measures supported by certain parties within the health system, raising serious questions about possible illegal coordination in decision-making.

Role of the Case Handler

It is noteworthy that the case handler at the County Governor’s office in Oslo, who is the same person who prepared the formal document mentioned above, granted the involved doctor, who has been implicated in these violations since 2022, exclusive access to the medical record (09.08.2022 – 2020/531). This decision can be seen as an implicit approval of the breaches, as the record was used as a tool for pressure, manipulation, and defamation, with support from local authorities to enforce sanctions against the affected individual. This gave the controversial doctor the opportunity to escalate events in a dangerous manner.

Official Practices and Formal Procedures

When the complaint was submitted to the health administration at the County Governor’s office in Oslo, neither Diakonhjemmet Hospital nor any of the involved entities took any real steps to contact the affected individual or respond to the complaints raised. The responses that were given were formal and superficial, reflecting neither a thorough investigation nor a detailed handling of the case. Additionally, the measures and responses implemented did not include any actual law enforcement but appeared as formal procedures intended to give a supervisory impression without concrete action to resolve the matter.

Conclusions and Outcomes

This case raises serious questions about the role of health administration at the County Governor’s office in Oslo in ensuring the protection of the affected individual’s rights. While the official responses may have appeared to be provided in accordance with applicable law, the reality reveals a concerning lack of efficiency in processes and a lack of transparency in handling these sensitive matters. Furthermore, the hospital’s and health administration’s silence regarding the doctor’s role in incitement and defamation, as well as the absence of responses from the committee for involuntary admissions, raises suspicion of possible collusion among the involved parties.

"The situation is now so clear that it no longer requires Braille for some to understand or acknowledge it."

Advokat Erlend Liaklev Andersen

Attorney

Arne Petter Byre Sandvik

Attorney

The documentation shows that the sequence of events escalated through the doctor in question, who took over the practice of the retired physician at Skøyen Health Center in 2022 and 2023. Documents and witness statements indicate that his administrative influence was used in a manner that created an atmosphere of pressure and intimidation, employing certain healthcare workers as instruments for improper influence, after reliable information emerged questioning the legality and safety of his professional conduct.

These circumstances reveal a complex background illustrating how abuse of medical authority can become an unethical tool that inflicts psychological, moral, and societal harm on patients. There have been reports of attempts to stigmatize certain patients with psychiatric labels that were not based on accurate medical assessments, as well as the preparation of reports with punitive or harassing content, which appear to be reactions to patients expressing facts or information that certain responsible parties did not want disclosed.

The documentation also shows deliberate attempts to threaten and silence journalists and critics who exposed or documented the abuses, including implicit threats and pressure intended to prevent publication and investigation, aiming to obstruct the emergence of the truth and protect the interests of certain authorities.

Documentation of this case also raises questions about the equal application of the law in Oslo, particularly with regard to patients with foreign backgrounds, where reports indicate discriminatory treatment that undermines their rights and human dignity. This suggests a potential pattern in which certain citizens are not recognized as full legal subjects, despite having the same legal rights as others, as stipulated by the Constitution regarding equality and the protection of all citizens’ fundamental rights.

Taken together, these issues raise fundamental questions about procedural safety, legal security, and the distinction between medical authority and individual rights, underscoring the need for an independent review to ensure that healthcare institutions are not used in practices outside their professional and humanitarian framework in Oslo.

helserett.com