Principer i konflikt?

Sammanfattning: Despite our modern society with a material abundance and apparent ways for everyone to participate, contribute and get help, there are groups there are groups of people in our society who need support. These groups include people with different forms of disability, who without help cannot be an active part of our society, or in some cases not even take care of themselves. These groups need help, though at the same time the help to these groups is costly and time-consuming. Much of the help and the support that these groups have been assured has been entrusted to the local governments to administrate, who within certain limits are free to determine how the support is given. There are still issues with the help and support given to the weaker groups in society, which of course is a problem. The problem does not have a elf-evident solution. The local governments can choose how they wish to support the citizens, leading to the issue of the citizens, who as a basic principle should all be treated equally, receive different forms of help. On the other hand there is a risk of very detailed legislation on what help the citizens should receive leads to an inappropriate limitation of local self-governance. The Swedish constitution contains objective paragraphs that dictate as goals for Swedish politics and law-making that the local self-governance, the citizens’ right to independence, freedom, integrity and equality before the law shall be protected. These principles have then to varying degree been expressed in laws, administration and court cases. This essay surveys how these principles are expressed in the constitution itself, as well as in the laws that serve to protect some of the weakest groups in society; the statute of social services, and the statute regarding support and service to certain groups of disabled people. The purpose of this essay is to weigh the different principles against each other, and try to find out if they can work together, or if there is a conflict between them. The two statutes also include objective paragraphs, which serve to grant the effected citizens a “reasonable quality of life” according to the statute of social services, and “good living-conditions” according to the statute regarding support and services to certain groups of disabled people. The essay contains examples of how these terms have been defined by the courts over time, and how the definition has changed depending on which of the principles of local self-governance or equality among citizens has been emphasized. A balancing of the principles against each other concludes that the principles should be able to be used simultaneously in the administration of cases tied to the two laws. An obvious problem is that is pointed out in the fact that the that the courts and formost the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden have chosen to largely limit what is taken into account when determining if a citizen is granted a reasonable quality of life or good living-conditions., which has led to a practice of law where the principle of local self-governance is given clear priority over the citizens’ right to equal help independent of place of residence. The problem that a culture is developing where local governments call upon consultants to teach them how they can deny requests for support is also stressed. In the analysis it is pointed out that the Swedish state is walking a thin line trying to help adress the problems of unequal support to the weaker groups in society, without inappropriately limiting the local self-governance. At the same time it is emphasized that the current direction of the legal situation is very unsure, and very concerning.