Search

The nature of the Swedish human rights legislation has undergone a significant transformation over the past decades. Whereas there was an overall consensus during the 20th century that the regulation and interpretation of human rights was best left to parliament, judicial review and strategic litigation has since come to play an ever larger role within the Swedish legal system. Throughout the 20th century the political majority viewed constitutional human rights as protection against potential anti democratic forces that were to come into play in times of crises. They were not primarily intended to be invoked to question regular legislation. A political majority considered human rights legislations to be too vague to hinder anything but blatant human rights violations, and thus their specific contents were deemed too political to be determined by anyone but the popularly elected parliament. Over the past 30 years, this attitude has shifted. The development of Swedish law has resulted in the view that even democratic parliaments are able to violate human rights in ordinary legislation. As such, the power to interpret and determine the scope of the human rights legislation has shifted from parliament to adjudicative organs through judicial review. At the same time, political activism through strategic litigation has grown in popularity and achieved significant legal changes. In summary, the modern human rights legislation has resulted in a redistribution of political power that is in stark contrast to what was envisioned when the Swedish constitutional rights were first developed. In this study, I examine the legal developments that have enabled the modern human rights legislation in order to create an understanding of its role within the Swedish democracy, over time and today. Through legislation, its legislative history, and court practice I chart and analyze the significant events surrounding the human rights legislation in the Swedish constitution and the European

The nature of the Swedish human rights legislation has undergone a significant transformation over the past decades. Whereas there was an overall consensus during the 20th century that the regulation and interpretation of human rights was best left to parliament, judicial review and strategic litigation has since come to play an ever larger role within the Swedish legal system. Throughout the 20th century the political majority viewed constitutional human rights as protection against potential anti democratic forces that were to come into play in times of crises. They were not primarily intended to be invoked to question regular legislation. A political majority considered human rights legislations to be too vague to hinder anything but blatant human rights violations, and thus their specific contents were deemed too political to be determined by anyone but the popularly elected parliament. Over the past 30 years, this attitude has shifted. The development of Swedish law has resulted in the view that even democratic parliaments are able to violate human rights in ordinary legislation. As such, the power to interpret and determine the scope of the human rights legislation has shifted from parliament to adjudicative organs through judicial review. At the same time, political activism through strategic litigation has grown in popularity and achieved significant legal changes. In summary, the modern human rights legislation has resulted in a redistribution of political power that is in stark contrast to what was envisioned when the Swedish constitutional rights were first developed. In this study, I examine the legal developments that have enabled the modern human rights legislation in order to create an understanding of its role within the Swedish democracy, over time and today. Through legislation, its legislative history, and court practice I chart and analyze the significant events surrounding the human rights legislation in the Swedish constitution and the European

In this post-hoc analysis of data from a randomised clinical trial, we compared the effect of liraglutide to placebo on markers of insulin secretion in persons with type 2 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. Liraglutide increased insulin secretion, measured by C-peptide, by 19% after 24 weeks of treatment., Funding Agencies|Novo NordiskNovo Nordisk

OBJECTIVE According to recent guidelines, individuals with type 1 diabetes should spend <4.0% of time per day with glucose levels <3.9 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL) and <1.0% per day with glucose levels <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In the GOLD randomized crossover trial, 161 individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) were randomized to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or conventional therapy with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and evaluated over 16 months. We estimated the association between time spent in hypoglycemia and various mean glucose and HbA1c levels. RESULTS Time spent in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L and <3.0 mmol/L) increased significantly with lower mean HbA1c and mean glucose levels during both CGM and conventional therapy. During CGM, 24 (57.1%) individuals with HbA1c <7.5% (<58 mmol/mol) had <1.0% time spent in hypoglycemia <3.0 mmol/L and 23 (54.8%) had <4.0% time spent in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L. During CGM, mean time spent in hypoglycemia for individuals with mean HbA1c 7.0% (52 mmol/mol) was estimated to be 5.4% for <3.9 mmol/L and 1.5% for <3.0 mmol/L. The corresponding values during SMBG were 9.2% and 3.5%, respectively. Individuals with mean glucose levels of 8 mmol/L spent 4.9% units more time with glucose levels <3.9 mmol/L and 2.8% units more time <3.0 mmol/L during SMBG compared with CGM. CONCLUSIONS Reaching current targets for time in hypoglycemia while at the same time reaching HbA1c targets is challenging for patients with type 1 diabetes treated with MDI both with CGM and SMBG monitoring. However, CGM is associated with considerably less time in hypoglycemia than SMBG at a broad range of HbA1c levels and is crucial for patients with MDI treatment if they are to have a chance to approach hypoglycemia targets., Funding Agencies|Swedish State (ALF agreement)