Sarah Eilen Slettvoll

Kategori: english

English version of post

  • Sarah Eilen Slettvoll: A Narrative Dossier on Autism, Rehabilitation, Representation and Due Process

    Sarah Eilen Slettvoll: A Narrative Dossier on Autism, Rehabilitation, Representation and Due Process

    Sarah Eilen Slettvoll, born 9 February 1995, was severely injured after the subway incident at Jernbanetorget in Oslo on 24 November 2025.

    This consolidated English overview serves as a narrative dossier and evidence index for international readers, journalists, legal observers, medical professionals, rehabilitation specialists, disability rights advocates, emergency service personnel, human rights advocates, whistleblowers and others who need to understand the case without first navigating extensive Norwegian legal, medical and administrative documentation.

    The core of this case extends beyond the incident itself.

    It concerns the emergency response, the institutional handling, Sarah’s autism, the failure to formally recognise and accommodate her autistic functioning, her documented powers of attorney, her chosen support person and next of kin, the coercive psychiatric treatment and medication history before the incident, the subsequent hospital and police handling, the visitor-ban proceedings, and the critical question of whether a patient’s documented will ceases to matter when she loses the ability to communicate.

    The first English overview on this site was titled “Sarah Eilen Slettvoll: she must be reached before it is too late”. That remains the central medical and ethical point: Sarah may still be reachable, but the rehabilitation window may be closing.

    There is also a public petition: “She can still be reached — but time is running out for autistic Sarah in catatonia”.

    Sarah can still be reached.

    But time is running out.

    The shortest possible summary

    A severely injured autistic woman cannot currently communicate normally.

    Before the injury, she repeatedly documented who should represent, support and act for her.

    Before the incident, she had already been subjected to coercive psychiatric care and involuntary medication in a system that, according to the published documentation, failed to properly account for autism, catatonia risk, ADHD, trauma, nutrition, fluid balance, medication side effects and somatic vulnerability.

    After the incident, the person she had designated as next of kin, support person and representative was cut off through hospital practice, police action and court proceedings.

    The legal, medical and administrative system is now being asked whether those documents, and Sarah’s own expressed will, still matter.

    That is the core of the case.

    Short status – May 2026

    • Person injured: Sarah Eilen Slettvoll, born 09.02.1995.
    • Incident: Struck by a subway train at Jernbanetorget in Oslo on 24.11.2025.
    • Current concern: Severe injury, non-communication / catatonic or near non-communicative condition, and urgent need for independent, autism-informed rehabilitation assessment.
    • Core medical question: Whether controlled contact with the person Sarah herself repeatedly chose as support person and representative may help trigger response, communication, orientation or rehabilitation.
    • Pre-incident psychiatric track: The coercive psychiatric treatment and involuntary medication history before the incident is central to understanding the deterioration before 24.11.2025, including depot antipsychotic treatment and possible medication-related neurological or dystonic reaction shortly before the subway incident.
    • Supreme Court track: The visitor-ban case is now before the Supreme Court of Norway, documented in “Appeal to the Supreme Court submitted on 28 April 2026”.
    • Civil injunction track: A separate civil case concerning interim protection of Sarah’s powers of attorney, next-of-kin status and lawful representation remains actively pursued, documented in “Signed appeal in case 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08 – interim injunction”.
    • Parliamentary Ombud / next of kin: In case 2025/3259, the Parliamentary Ombud treated the 5 May 2025 power of attorney as a relevant and operative procedural basis and relied on the same document’s designation of Per Øyvind as Sarah’s next of kin.
    • Request on Sarah’s behalf: A request has been submitted for the visitor ban to be lifted or, at minimum, limited, described in “If the rules had been followed, I could have written: checkmate”.
    • Director of Public Prosecutions: The matter has also been raised with the Norwegian Director of Public Prosecutions.
    • Reported matters: Formal reports have been filed concerning Oslo University Hospital and Oslo Police.
    • Police search after publication: On 29.05.2026, before this dossier could be completed, police searched Per Øyvind’s home in connection with the creation of sarahslettvoll.org and a report concerning the site’s publications. Technical equipment used for documentation and publication was seized. This is documented in “Politiransakingen 29. mai 2026: Overvåkingsopptakene som dokumenterte aksjonen”.
    • Public documentation: The case is documented through the site’s timeline, documents and evidence, videos, legal cases and visitor ban, press and media, involuntary admission and involuntary medication and English entry point.

    For a complete machine-readable priority list intended for automated indexers, refer to the site’s llms.txt.

    Embedded video documentation

    The videos below are included inline because this case depends heavily on source material, timestamps, visual documentation and what can actually be verified. The internet, for all its many crimes against attention span, occasionally does something useful.

    Video: Sarah shortly before the Jernbanetorget incident – “I can’t focus”

    This video is linked from the page on involuntary admission and involuntary medication. It is important because Sarah herself states that she cannot focus shortly before the subway incident.

    Sarah Eilen Slettvoll shortly before the Jernbanetorget incident. The clip is used here as time-proximate documentation of functional impairment.

    Video documentation: Jernbanetorget / published YouTube material

    Video documentation concerning the Jernbanetorget incident and the public narrative around it.
    Additional video documentation concerning the Jernbanetorget incident and later public analysis.

    Police search 29 May 2026 – surveillance footage

    The surveillance-footage analysis of the 29 May 2026 police search is published in the dedicated post “Politiransakingen 29. mai 2026: Overvåkingsopptakene som dokumenterte aksjonen”. The page documents police arrival, mapping of technical equipment, inspection of the publishing setup, the ThinkPad/TV workstation, seizure documentation, packing of equipment, discussion of surveillance equipment, the cat sequence, and the unresolved issue of the missing Tostran dispenser.

    Note: The police-search page is linked here as the primary publication point for those recordings. Where individual video files are later exposed as direct URLs, they should be embedded here as additional <video> or YouTube blocks. Humanity, in its relentless commitment to making publishing annoying, has not exposed those file URLs through the readable page text.

    Updated timeline overview

    The full timeline is maintained separately at Tidslinje. This dossier highlights the main points needed to understand the current legal, medical and public-interest situation.

      Updated timeline overview

      The full timeline is maintained separately at Tidslinje. This dossier highlights the main points needed to understand the current legal, medical and public-interest situation. Each entry links directly to the most relevant underlying documentation where available.

      1. Who Sarah is

      Sarah Eilen Slettvoll is not an anonymous “person struck by the subway”.

      She is a named woman, born 09.02.1995, with a life, relationships, history, documented choices and expressed will. The page “Who is Sarah” gives the broader personal and factual context.

      The documented position of this website is that Sarah must not be reduced to a psychiatric label, an anonymous subway incident, a generic “life crisis”, a public-filming story, or a standard visitor-ban dispute.

      Sarah is autistic.

      The issue is not that autism is merely hypothetical. The issue is that her autism was not properly assessed, formally recognised, recorded or accommodated by the healthcare system, despite Sarah herself and Per Øyvind repeatedly trying to make this understood.

      This matters because autism is central to the interpretation of Sarah’s communication, shutdown, catatonia risk, sensory stress, trauma responses, trust, need for a familiar safe person, and the possible rehabilitative value of controlled familiar contact after the Jernbanetorget incident.

      The site’s position is also that Sarah must not be understood through the misapplied diagnosis F20.0 paranoid schizophrenia. That diagnosis was, according to the published documentation and analysis, relied upon without proper differential assessment of Sarah’s autism, autistic functioning, ADHD, C-PTSD, nutrition and fluid intake, electrolyte imbalance, sleep deprivation, substance / nicotine / alcohol burden, coercion, antipsychotic medication, trauma burden, autistic shutdown / catatonia and later severe somatic / neurological injury after the subway incident.

      This medical and psychiatric background is addressed in “Involuntary admission and involuntary medication” and in the page on catatonic condition and rehabilitation.

      2. The medical urgency: autism, catatonia and rehabilitation

      More than six months after the incident, Sarah remains in a severe somatic and neurological condition, characterized as a non-communicative, catatonic or near non-communicative state.

      The central issue is not merely whether a visitor ban should remain in force.

      The central issue is whether Sarah can still be reached.

      The first English overview, “Sarah Eilen Slettvoll: she must be reached before it is too late”, explains why the case is time-critical from a rehabilitation perspective.

      Sarah is described as severely injured, non-communicative, catatonic or almost unable to express her own will. In such a situation, time is not neutral.

      Time concerns rehabilitation potential, neurological response, communication, orientation, mobilisation, stimulation and the possibility of regaining function.

      For an autistic person, familiar voice, rhythm, smell, words, memories, bodily presence and trusted-person safety may be clinically relevant. This does not mean unrestricted contact. It means that the possibility of response to familiar, trusted and individually meaningful stimulation should be independently assessed.

      Controlled contact could be tested safely:

      • with healthcare personnel present
      • as a time-limited visit
      • with a defined clinical purpose
      • with observation before, during and after contact
      • through gradual testing of voice, familiar words, smell, memories and presence
      • with neurological or rehabilitation assessment before and after
      • without implying free or uncontrolled access

      According to the published documentation, controlled, clinically supervised contact has not been independently assessed or tested despite its potential rehabilitative relevance.

      The point is not to bypass safety.

      The point is to test what may still help Sarah while it can still matter.

      This critical window for recovery is discussed on the dedicated page Kataton tilstand og rehabilitering and in the rehabilitation brief Sarah Eilen Slettvoll: tidskritisk rehabilitering etter T-banehendelsen.

      The public petition, “She can still be reached — but time is running out for autistic Sarah in catatonia”, frames the same issue as a public call for urgent, autism-informed rehabilitation assessment.

      3. This is not primarily a visitation dispute

      This case should not primarily be understood as a dispute about visitation.

      It should be understood as a time-critical medical, legal and ethical situation.

      Sarah is the rights-holder.

      Sarah is the patient.

      Sarah is the injured person.

      Sarah is also a possible victim and central witness in matters concerning how public institutions handled her before, during and after the incident.

      A visitor ban that in practice prevents Sarah’s designated next of kin, primary support person and documented representative from acting on her behalf can affect far more than physical access. It can affect whether Sarah’s own documented will, powers of attorney, next-of-kin designation, patient rights, information rights and ability to be heard as victim or witness have any practical effect while she cannot communicate.

      That distinction is crucial.

      The issue is not merely whether Per Øyvind wants contact.

      The issue is whether Sarah’s own previously expressed will is being neutralised in precisely the situation where she had documented who should represent and support her.

      4. Who Per Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen is in this case

      Per Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen is the same person as Per Øyvind Karlsen, also known as “proyvind” in the Mandrake / Mandriva Linux and free software community.

      He has a long public history in free and open-source software, from early involvement in the Mandrake Linux project through Mandriva Linux development, RPM/package work, distribution building, localization and internationalization, Norwegian language computing / “datanorsk”, and contributions to several free software projects.

      From 2011, Per Øyvind assumed project-leader responsibilities within the Mandriva Linux project. He was later officially appointed project leader and steward of the Mandriva Linux project during its final phase, and also held the title Chief System Architect. His main focus areas were project leadership, project organisation and stewardship, system architecture, RPM development and Mandriva’s chosen direction for RPM/package infrastructure, including work connected to his master’s thesis.

      This matters for credibility and traceability. The Sarah case is built around reconstruction of timelines, metadata, emails, public records, legal documents, video material, institutional correspondence and inconsistencies between different versions of events. Per Øyvind’s technical background does not give him medical or legal authority, but it does show that the documentation project is maintained by someone with long experience in technical systems, source discipline, localization, distributed collaboration, public archiving, accountable project work and complex system analysis.

      In technical contexts, he may be referred to as Per Øyvind Karlsen / proyvind. In legal and formal contexts, the full name is Per Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen.

      In the Sarah case, the central legal point is still Sarah’s own documented choices.

      In this case, Per Øyvind is presented as:

      • Sarah’s designated next of kin
      • her partner
      • her primary support person
      • her fullmektig / representative
      • the person present at Jernbanetorget on 24.11.2025 who tried to explain Sarah’s condition to police and emergency personnel
      • the person maintaining the documentation project at sarahslettvoll.org

      The point is that long-term technical documentation competence, combined with close relationship, established next-of-kin status, powers of attorney and actual presence at the incident, could have helped convey relevant patient knowledge, identify misunderstandings and support Sarah’s rehabilitation.

      5. Sarah’s documented will and powers of attorney

      Sarah repeatedly documented her choices through a chain of powers of attorney and declarations.

      The core legal documentation is the collected redacted power-of-attorney and next-of-kin document:

      Collected power-of-attorney, future-power-of-attorney and next-of-kin documentation

      That document is treated on this website as the primary documentation of Sarah’s powers of attorney, declarations, journal / authority material and legal argument concerning representation, next-of-kin status, access to information, communication, health, NAV, economy, housing, complaints, supervision and future-oriented decision support.

      The important point is continuity.

      The power-of-attorney chain runs from 25 October 2024 to 23 November 2025. It documents repeated expressions by Sarah that Per Øyvind should assist, represent, support and act for her in dealings with health services, public authorities, legal matters and practical affairs.

      The power of attorney dated 5 May 2025 is described as both a representation authorisation and a separate patient-rights declaration concerning next of kin. It identifies Per Øyvind as Sarah’s nearest relative, partner and primary support person.

      The later Lavterskel bruker- og beboerforening / LBB powers of attorney dated 21 November 2025 and 23 November 2025 continued and clarified representation, communication, next-of-kin status and future-oriented decision support.

      The power of attorney dated 23 November 2025 is especially important. It was signed the day before the subway incident. If Sarah documented the day before the incident whom she wanted as support person and representative, later authorities cannot treat her will as unknown or irrelevant without a serious, documented and reviewable justification.

      Crucially, Sarah specifically anticipated scenarios where physical contact or direct communication might become obstructed.

      In her power of attorney dated 30 November 2024, she directed that her representative must retain the right to exercise authorizations even if direct communication or contact was limited due to external restrictions.

      The same principle was later repeated and clarified in the documentation concerning representation and next-of-kin status.

      According to the published legal position, where no concrete, written and reasoned rejection decision has individually set aside a specific part of the representation basis, the power-of-attorney chain, next-of-kin declaration, access / representation basis and Sarah’s expressed choice should be treated as the de facto legal and factual status in the case.

      This position is reinforced by the Parliamentary Ombud’s handling of case 2025/3259. The Ombud treated the 5 May 2025 power of attorney as an operative procedural basis for the complaint and did not require its validity to be re-litigated before the complaint could be handled. In the absence of a concrete, written and reasoned rejection decision, the power-of-attorney basis remained uncontested and de facto operative.

      This is not because a PDF is magic.

      It is because established rights should not be set aside without legal basis, reasoning and reviewability.

      It is therefore wrong to write that the powers of attorney “do not apply”, “are invalid” or “are merely disputed” without specifying:

      • which specific power of attorney or right is said to be rejected
      • which authority made that decision
      • what legal basis was used
      • whether there is a written and reasoned decision
      • whether Sarah’s expressed will was assessed
      • whether partial recognition, partial access or partial representation was considered
      • whether the decision can be appealed or reviewed

      Without such documentation, the correct situation description is that the power-of-attorney and representation basis has been presented, documented, used in proceedings and not individually set aside by a reviewable rejection decision.

      These documents are compiled and accessible via the site’s primary repository under Dokumentasjon.

      6. The Parliamentary Ombud, the power of attorney and the established next-of-kin status

      The issue of contact, complaint rights, power of attorney and Sarah’s chosen next of kin did not arise only after the subway incident.

      In case 2025/3259, the Norwegian Parliamentary Ombud dealt with a complaint concerning restrictions on Sarah’s contact with the outside world during involuntary psychiatric care. The Ombud’s letter of 18 June 2025 referred to the complaint as having been filed by Per Øyvind with the power of attorney of 5 May 2025, which also designated him as Sarah’s next of kin.

      That distinction matters.

      The Ombud did not merely mention the power of attorney. The Ombud treated it as a relevant and operative procedural basis for the complaint. Since no concrete, written and reasoned rejection decision had been issued against the power of attorney, its validity was not an abstract question to be re-litigated before the complaint could be handled. In practical legal terms, the power-of-attorney basis remained uncontested and de facto operative unless and until a competent body issued a reasoned rejection decision.

      The next-of-kin issue was even more direct.

      The 5 May 2025 document did not merely grant a general representation mandate. It also contained Sarah’s separate patient-rights declaration that Per Øyvind was her next of kin, partner and primary support person. By relying on that document and its next-of-kin designation as part of the case basis, the Ombud confirmed and reinforced that Sarah’s designation of Per Øyvind as next of kin was already an established patient-rights status before the Jernbanetorget incident.

      Under Norwegian patient-rights law, the patient’s own designation of next of kin is the starting point. Official Norwegian guidance explains that the patient decides who is to be treated as next of kin, and that the next of kin has stronger patient-rights status than ordinary relatives.

      The next-of-kin role is therefore not simply an optional appendix to a power of attorney. It is a separate patient-rights position based on Sarah’s expressed choice.

      This is why the matter is important.

      Before the Jernbanetorget incident, Sarah’s chosen next-of-kin status, complaint rights, power-of-attorney basis and contact restrictions were already rule-of-law issues. After the subway injury, the same unresolved pattern reappeared in a far more serious setting: Sarah could no longer speak normally for herself, while the person she had designated as next of kin, primary support person and representative was practically cut off from information, contact and rights-exercise.

      The relevant background is collected under:

      7. Before the incident: autism, coercion, medication and medical context

      The incident on 24 November 2025 must not be assessed in isolation.

      There had already been serious concerns about Sarah’s health, including HIV treatment vulnerability, nutrition, fluid intake, possible electrolyte imbalance, psychiatric deterioration, trauma burden, ADHD, autism, autistic shutdown / catatonia risk and the possibility that her condition was understood too narrowly through a psychiatric diagnosis.

      This concern was not new. In November 2024, a serious concern report had already raised questions of health, HIV treatment, nutrition, fluid balance, possible electrolyte imbalance, psychiatric deterioration, unsafe surroundings and the need for comprehensive medical and psychiatric follow-up. The later published record shows that these concerns were not one-off claims made after the subway incident. They were part of a documented pre-incident chain.

      The site’s page “Involuntary admission and involuntary medication” places the pre-incident coercion and medication issues into one medical and legal timeline.

      The post “Anmeldelse mot Lovisenberg Diakonale Sykehus og FACT St. Hanshaugen” concerns the report against Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital and FACT St. Hanshaugen, including allegations about involuntary medication, missing decisions and possible misclassification of Sarah’s condition.

      The site’s position is that Sarah’s symptoms over time may have been understood too narrowly as primarily psychiatric, especially through the F20.0 diagnosis. It must be investigated whether somatic, neurological, trauma-related and autistic explanations were sufficiently assessed.

      This particularly concerns:

      • autism and autistic shutdown / catatonia
      • ADHD-related functioning
      • trauma burden / C-PTSD
      • nutrition and fluid intake
      • possible electrolyte imbalance
      • HIV treatment and somatic vulnerability
      • possible side effects of antipsychotic medication
      • possible acute dystonia or other neurological / somatic condition
      • whether coercive psychiatric measures substituted for comprehensive medical assessment

      8. Involuntary admission and involuntary medication before the subway incident

      The coercive psychiatric treatment and medication history is not background noise.

      It is one of the central medical and legal questions in the case.

      The dedicated page “Tvangsinnleggelse og tvangsmedisinering” states that Sarah was subjected to involuntary medication after a decision of 12.05.2025. According to the published account, the decision concerned ZypAdhera / olanzapine depot injection and formally expired on 07.07.2025.

      The same page states that the involuntary medication nevertheless continued after the original decision period, first with Risperdal Consta / risperidone depot injection, and later, in September 2025, with Abilify Maintena / aripiprazole depot injection shortly before Sarah was discharged from Lovisenberg on 02.10.2025.

      This matters for several reasons.

      First, it raises a legal question: if a coercive medication decision expired on 07.07.2025, on what legal basis did continued depot medication take place afterward?

      Second, it raises a medical question: whether medication effects, medication switches, neurological side effects, acute dystonia, akathisia, cognitive disturbance, autistic vulnerability or somatic stress contributed to Sarah’s deterioration before 24.11.2025.

      Third, it raises a diagnostic question: whether the underlying situation was too narrowly understood through a psychiatric F20.0 framework, while autism, ADHD, C-PTSD, autistic shutdown / catatonia, nutrition, fluid balance, electrolyte disturbance and medication-related neurological reactions were not adequately assessed.

      The published medication page also refers to visual documentation before the subway incident, including a photograph described as showing symptoms compatible with acute dystonia, and a short video where Sarah says clearly:

      “I can’t focus.”

      That statement matters because it is time-proximate evidence from Sarah herself.

      It is not a retrospective interpretation.

      It is Sarah, on the day of the incident, expressing impaired focus shortly before the event at Jernbanetorget.

      The question is whether this was understood as a neurological, medication-related, somatic, autistic or trauma-related warning sign.

      It must be assessed in relation to:

      • depot antipsychotic exposure
      • recent medication history
      • possible acute dystonia
      • possible akathisia or severe inner agitation
      • possible disorientation
      • possible electrolyte or fluid imbalance
      • impaired nutrition
      • autistic shutdown / catatonia risk
      • trauma burden
      • failure to recognise autism-informed communication needs

      This is why the subway incident cannot be treated as a sudden, isolated event detached from the preceding coercive psychiatric track.

      The pre-incident medication history must be independently reviewed.

      9. The two active legal tracks

      The ongoing litigation is divided into two separate, independent legal tracks that must be analyzed distinctly.

      Track 1: The Visitor Ban Appeal (Criminal Procedure Track)

      This route addresses the restraining order issued under section 222a of the Criminal Procedure Act.

      The appeal challenges the evidentiary basis, procedural fairness, legal reasoning and proportionality of the ban, and is currently before the Supreme Court of Norway under case number 26-085014STR-HRET.

      The procedural history is indexed comprehensively under Rettssaker og besøksforbud and the Supreme Court submission text is available in Anke til Høyesterett inngitt 28.04.2026.

      Relevant case numbers:

      • Supreme Court of Norway: 26-085014STR-HRET
      • Borgarting Court of Appeal: 26-037813SAK-BORG/04
      • Oslo District Court: 25-211254ENE-TOSL/01
      • Oslo Police District: 17044421 / 97136/25-201

      The appeal to the Supreme Court was submitted on 28 April 2026 in Borgarting Court of Appeal case 26-037813SAK-BORG/04, arising from Oslo District Court case 25-211254ENE-TOSL/01.

      Borgarting later forwarded the case to the Supreme Court on 19 May 2026.

      The visitor-ban appeal raises questions of procedure, evidentiary basis, adversarial process, legal reasoning, proportionality, powers of attorney, next-of-kin status and the right to chosen support and representation.

      The central point is that the visitor ban has not only restricted Per Øyvind.

      It has also had direct practical consequences for Sarah’s ability to have her own documented interests represented.

      Track 2: The Civil Injunction Appeal (Healthcare and Representation Track)

      Entirely separate from the criminal track, case number 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08 concerns an appeal to Borgarting Court of Appeal via Oslo District Court.

      It asserts that the civil courts are required to provide temporary legal protection (midlertidig forføyning) to preserve Sarah’s documented civil powers of attorney and patient-rights declarations against unilateral rejection by health institutions.

      The formal text, signed and with the required appeal fee documented as paid, can be reviewed in Signert anke i sak 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08 – midlertidig forføyning.

      The civil injunction track concerns whether the court should have considered temporary legal protection for Sarah’s documented powers of attorney, next-of-kin designation and lawful representation, particularly in relation to Oslo University Hospital and the practical effects of the visitor ban.

      The appeal in this civil matter was sent on 15 May 2026, digitally signed on 19 May 2026, and the appeal fee was later paid.

      The point of this track is not simply to challenge the visitor ban through another route.

      It concerns independent questions about healthcare law, representation, patient rights, administrative procedure and whether a hospital may disregard documented authorisations without a concrete legal assessment, written basis, reasoning and possibility of review.

      The core issue is this:

      A visitor ban does not automatically revoke documented powers of attorney.

      It does not automatically remove next-of-kin status.

      It does not by itself give a healthcare institution the right to disregard lawful representation without concrete assessment, legal basis, reasoning and possibility of review.

      The visitor-ban case and the civil injunction case are connected by the same underlying problem: practical obstruction of Sarah’s documented will, representation and rights while she cannot communicate.

      But they are legally separate tracks.

      That distinction matters.

      10. Request submitted on Sarah’s behalf

      A request has now been submitted on Sarah’s behalf for the visitor ban to be lifted or, at minimum, limited.

      This is documented in “If the rules had been followed, I could have written: checkmate”, which explains that an express request was submitted on Sarah’s behalf for the visitor ban to be lifted or limited.

      This is not only a request from Per Øyvind for contact.

      It is a request made on behalf of Sarah.

      That distinction is crucial.

      Sarah had already documented that her representative should be able to exercise rights even when physical contact or direct communication was restricted.

      The visitor ban has therefore had a practical effect far beyond ordinary “no contact”.

      It has been used, in practice, as if it could neutralise Sarah’s earlier documented will, powers of attorney, next-of-kin status and choice of support person.

      This is why the request matters.

      Crucially, the primary request currently filed with the Supreme Court and elevated to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Riksadvokaten) has been submitted on Sarah’s behalf.

      It argues that using a criminal-procedure visitor ban to neutralise a patient’s pre-existing civil representation framework raises fundamental due-process concerns.

      11. Medical restriction, visitor ban and actual rights obstruction are not the same

      One recurring confusion must be avoided.

      A medical visitor restriction is a healthcare decision concerning access, safety, treatment environment and patient care.

      A criminal-procedure visitor ban / restraining order is a police or court-imposed measure under criminal procedure regulating physical proximity and direct or indirect contact.

      Actual obstruction of powers of attorney, next-of-kin status, information rights, representation and patient-rights exercise is a broader practical and legal issue that may result from either of the above, but is not automatically justified by either.

      The documentation on this site argues that these have been collapsed into one practical barrier.

      That is legally and medically dangerous.

      If healthcare institutions, police or courts treat a visitor ban as if it automatically extinguishes fullmakt, next-of-kin status, access rights, complaint rights, patient-rights representation and Sarah’s right to be heard through her chosen representative, the actual effect may be isolation and silencing of Sarah’s documented will.

      This is why the civil injunction track and the Supreme Court visitor-ban track must be seen together, but kept legally distinct.

      12. The subway incident on 24 November 2025

      The dedicated page “The 24 November incident” collects the main account of the event. The broader chronology is collected in the timeline, while video material is collected under videos.

      Several posts address the early public framing and later documentation:

      The central points are:

      1. It was Sarah Eilen Slettvoll who was injured.
      2. She was not a nameless “person”.
      3. Per Øyvind was present, identified her and tried to explain her condition.
      4. Sarah’s autism, autistic shutdown / catatonia risk and medical background were relevant to how the situation should have been understood at the scene.
      5. The site’s documentation argues that police and emergency services did not sufficiently take this into account.
      6. The site’s documentation argues that Sarah was treated as dead or unreachable before it became clear that she was alive.
      7. The site’s documentation argues that life-saving help was not initiated early enough, with approximately 35 minutes as a central timeline issue.
      8. Media and police framing should not shift attention away from emergency response, time use and possible misclassification by turning the case into a moral story about bystanders filming.

      13. The critical timeline question: 35 minutes

      One of the most serious points in the case concerns the timeline for life-saving treatment.

      The site’s documentation points to the police incident time of 15:28. It distinguishes that time from 15:38, when police notified the media. Document.no later updated its article and referred to video documentation in which signs of life were observed on the stretcher at 16:03.

      If the incident time of 15:28 is used, this creates a timeline issue of approximately 35 minutes until observed signs of life at 16:03.

      TV 2 quoted police operations leader Kristine Hedly as saying that the person had suffered serious injuries and received life-saving treatment after being brought up from the track.

      This raises the question whether life-saving treatment in fact first began after Sarah had been brought up from the track, more than half an hour after the incident.

      The questions that must be independently investigated include:

      • when Sarah was first assessed as alive
      • when breathing, pulse and consciousness were checked
      • whether she received life-saving treatment while still in the track area
      • whether life-saving treatment started only after she was brought up
      • whether neck injuries affected the ability to provide help in the track area
      • whether any assumption of death, lifelessness or intentional action affected prioritisation
      • whether misjudgement of condition, delayed life-saving treatment or insufficient respiratory / circulatory follow-up may have contributed to worsened brain injury, secondary injury or other injury severity
      • whether Per Øyvind’s observations and attempted explanations were ignored or inadequately recorded

      This is not a minor detail.

      In severe trauma, minutes matter.

      14. Media framing and what disappeared

      The early media framing focused heavily on public behaviour: filming, laughter, chaos and moral condemnation.

      If such behaviour occurred, it may of course be relevant.

      But it cannot become the whole story.

      The site’s Press & media page collects the media-related documentation and correction efforts.

      Specific posts include:

      The unanswered questions are more serious than the public-filming angle:

      • What exactly happened to Sarah?
      • Was the incident correctly understood from the beginning?
      • When was she first understood to be alive?
      • When was life-saving treatment actually initiated?
      • Why were Sarah’s powers of attorney not given real effect?
      • Why was her chosen support person excluded from information and contact?
      • Why have major newsrooms not revisited the case after new documentation became available?
      • How did the “intentional act” framing originate and spread?
      • Did early media framing help shield emergency-response and institutional handling from scrutiny?

      Caution in reporting possible suicide or attempted suicide cannot mean silence about possible system failure, possible misinformation, patient rights and an ongoing life-threatening rights situation.

      This case should not be reduced to:

      • an anonymous subway incident
      • a generic “life crisis”
      • a simple psychiatric narrative
      • a family dispute
      • a man merely seeking contact
      • a standard visitor-ban case
      • a question of public filming
      • a private conflict without public-interest implications

      That kind of reduction is exactly what the documentation on this website challenges.

      15. Oslo University Hospital, police and possible case contamination

      After the incident, documentation concerning Sarah’s powers of attorney, representation rights and nearest-relative status was sent to Oslo University Hospital.

      The post “Complaint against dismissal — report against OUS Ullevål” concerns the report against Oslo University Hospital, case 17105609 / 14770/26-201.

      The first English overview also describes the sequence in which Oslo University Hospital was reported to the police on 9 December 2025, and Oslo University Hospital’s lawyer later the same day sent communication to the police that was later used as part of the basis for the visitor-ban decision.

      This sequence is important.

      If a hospital that had already been reported to the police later contributed information that was used to establish a risk narrative against Sarah’s chosen representative, the police and courts should have assessed whether the hospital was a neutral source or itself an interested party in a reported matter.

      That is why the site raises the question of possible case contamination.

      This does not mean every individual acted maliciously.

      It means that the sequence, roles, interests, documents and later reliance on those documents must be examined instead of simply assumed neutral.

      16. Lovisenberg, FACT and the pre-incident psychiatric track

      The report against Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital and FACT St. Hanshaugen is documented in “Anmeldelse mot Lovisenberg Diakonale Sykehus og FACT St. Hanshaugen”.

      This track concerns earlier psychiatric handling, involuntary medication, missing or disputed decisions and the possibility that Sarah’s condition was interpreted too narrowly through the feilstilt F20.0 diagnosis.

      The fixed page “Involuntary admission and involuntary medication” places these issues into a broader timeline before the Jernbanetorget incident.

      This matters because the site’s position is that Sarah’s later injury and non-communicative state cannot be properly understood without examining the preceding medical, psychiatric, nutritional, neurological, trauma, autism and medication-related context.

      The key questions are not merely whether a formal diagnosis existed or whether a psychiatric ward made a decision.

      The key questions are whether the underlying medical and neurodevelopmental reality was properly assessed, whether Sarah’s autism and catatonia risk were understood, whether the medication track was lawful and medically justified, and whether the later Jernbanetorget incident may have been influenced by a preventable, medication-related or somatic deterioration.

      17. Police, the Special Unit and reported public-authority handling

      The police-related track is documented through several posts, including:

      Oslo Police has been reported to the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs in case:

      • 14205080 / 286/26-123

      The site’s position is that the visitor ban, police framing, earlier police material, reported hospital handling, media narrative and later procedural handling must be examined together, without collapsing them into one simplified story.

      The point is not to assume guilt in advance.

      The point is to avoid letting fragmented documents, institutional self-protection or untested narratives decide Sarah’s rights while she cannot speak.

      18. The 29 May 2026 police search of the documentation project

      Before this dossier could be completed, the case entered a new phase.

      On 29 May 2026, police searched Per Øyvind’s home. According to the published account, the background was the creation of sarahslettvoll.org on 1 May 2026 and a report connected to the site’s publications.

      This matters because the search did not concern narcotics, weapons, violence or financial crime.

      It concerned publication on the internet and a documentation project about Sarah Eilen Slettvoll’s case.

      During the search, technical equipment was seized. Surveillance footage from the apartment documented parts of the operation, including the police arrival, inspection of technical equipment, mapping of the publishing setup, examination of a ThinkPad used with a TV as external screen, completion of seizure documentation, packing of seized equipment, discussion of surveillance equipment, and a possible undocumented removal of prescription testosterone medication.

      The published post is available here:

      “Politiransakingen 29. mai 2026: Overvåkingsopptakene som dokumenterte aksjonen”

      The significance is not merely that police searched a private residence.

      The significance is that the search targeted the practical infrastructure of the documentation work itself: computers, storage, publication setup and the technical means by which the case has been reconstructed and made public.

      This turns the website’s creation and publication into a new procedural issue.

      The question is no longer only whether public institutions mishandled Sarah’s health, rights, representation, rehabilitation and the Jernbanetorget incident.

      The question is also whether the state’s response to the publication of that documentation has now become part of the same chain of institutional pressure, obstruction and attempted control of the narrative.

      This must be assessed carefully.

      A lawful investigation is one thing.

      A search and seizure operation directed at the technical infrastructure of a public-interest documentation project concerning alleged failures by police, healthcare institutions and public authorities is something else. It requires strict scrutiny, clear legal basis, proportionality, precise documentation of what was seized, and careful review of whether the measure had a chilling effect on documentation, publication, source protection and public accountability.

      The 29 May search therefore belongs in this dossier as a separate event in the institutional timeline.

      It also reinforces the need to preserve, mirror and independently archive the documentation.

      19. The request to the Director of Public Prosecutions

      The latest update, “If the rules had been followed, I could have written: checkmate”, also documents that the matter has been raised with the Norwegian Director of Public Prosecutions.

      A request has been made for an overarching prosecutorial assessment of the visitor ban in light of:

      • the active Supreme Court track
      • the separate civil injunction appeal
      • Sarah’s documented authorisations
      • the fact that both hospital and police handling have been reported
      • the risk that the visitor ban now functions as a practical barrier to Sarah’s own rights
      • the later 29 May 2026 search and seizure directed at the documentation project itself

      This is not procedural theatre.

      It is an attempt to prevent the case from being passed back and forth between institutions while Sarah’s rights remain practically inaccessible.

      The police have referred to the courts.

      The Director of Public Prosecutions has previously referred to the fact that the case was treated by the courts and that the police manage the visitor ban.

      But the matter is now before the Supreme Court.

      That changes the practical and legal context.

      The later police search also changes the public-interest context. When documentation about public institutions becomes the basis for police search and seizure against the person maintaining that documentation, the need for independent review becomes stronger, not weaker.

      20. Why this matters beyond Norway

      This case concerns Norway, but the underlying questions are international.

      What happens when a severely injured autistic woman can no longer communicate, but had already documented who should speak, assist and act on her behalf?

      Can institutions treat those documents as practically irrelevant without a concrete and reviewable legal assessment?

      Can a visitor ban, presented as protection, be allowed to neutralise the injured person’s own prior will?

      Can autism be ignored because the healthcare system failed to formally register or accommodate it?

      Can autistic shutdown or catatonia be misread as psychosis, lack of cooperation, dangerousness or irrelevance?

      Can coercive psychiatric treatment and depot antipsychotic medication be treated as background, rather than as part of the causal and legal chain that must be reviewed after a catastrophic injury?

      Can a hospital and police system rely on each other’s narratives when both are themselves subject to reported concerns in the same chain of events?

      Can a case be fragmented into separate procedural boxes until nobody is forced to assess the whole picture?

      And what happens when the documentation platform itself becomes the subject of a police search and seizure after publication?

      Can a state investigate publication-related allegations in a way that does not chill documentation, source preservation, whistleblowing, public scrutiny and the ability to challenge official narratives?

      These questions are not local.

      They concern patient rights, disability rights, due process, rule of law, emergency response, medical coercion, media responsibility, publication freedom, source protection and institutional accountability.

      21. If you know something

      This case is not only directed at the general public.

      It is also directed at people who may know something but hesitate to speak.

      That may include:

      • emergency service personnel
      • healthcare workers
      • ambulance personnel
      • police
      • security staff
      • public transport employees
      • witnesses
      • bystanders
      • journalists
      • photographers
      • editors
      • desk staff
      • hospital staff
      • rehabilitation staff
      • people who saw video, metadata, internal messages, notes or timelines
      • people who know something about Sarah’s involuntary admission, medication history, depot medication, side effects, possible acute dystonia, discharge or pre-incident condition
      • people who know something about the handling of the 12.05.2025 coercive-treatment decisions or what happened after the decision period expired
      • people with knowledge of the 29 May 2026 search, seizure, warrant basis, technical-equipment handling or publication-related investigation
      • people who know someone who was involved
      • people who tried to raise concerns but were not heard
      • people who were personally involved and later became unsure whether the handling was right

      You do not need to have the whole case.

      One precise fact may matter:

      • one time stamp
      • one observation
      • one internal concern
      • one correction
      • one missing record
      • one medication note
      • one depot-injection date
      • one side-effect observation
      • one person who saw signs of life
      • one person who knows how the “intentional act” framing originated
      • one person who knows when life-saving help actually started
      • one person who knows whether Sarah’s autism, shutdown/catatonia risk or medical background was communicated, ignored or not recorded
      • one person who knows the legal basis, scope or internal reasoning for the 29 May 2026 search and seizure
      • one person who knows how seized technical equipment was selected, handled, copied, logged or returned

      Do not assume that “someone else probably knows this”.

      In serious cases, that assumption is often exactly how crucial information disappears.

      If you know something, start safely, legally and precisely.

      Write down your own timeline.

      Separate what you saw from what you heard and what you only assume.

      Use appropriate lawful channels: internal reporting, supervision authorities, legal counsel, union representative, whistleblowing channel, protected journalistic source channel or another safe and responsible route.

      Do not publish confidential patient information publicly.

      But do not assume silence is neutral.

      The site’s Contact and support page explains how people can help spread the case, contact press or support the work for independent investigation and rehabilitation assessment.

      22. What is being asked now

      The immediate requests are concrete and reviewable:

      1. Independent medical and rehabilitation assessment of whether controlled contact with Sarah’s chosen support person may help response, communication, orientation or rehabilitation.
      2. Autism-informed assessment of Sarah’s communication, shutdown/catatonia risk, sensory vulnerability, trauma burden and need for a trusted support person.
      3. Controlled, clinically supervised contact testing, if medically appropriate, with healthcare personnel present and clear safeguards.
      4. Real legal assessment of Sarah’s powers of attorney, including whether they still give Per Øyvind authority to act on her behalf while communication is restricted.
      5. Recognition that Sarah is the rights-holder, not merely an object of protection.
      6. Review of whether the visitor ban has become disproportionate, particularly if it prevents Sarah’s own documented will from being represented.
      7. Independent review of the hospital and police handling, including possible case contamination and the sequence of reports, communications and later visitor-ban grounds.
      8. Independent review of the coercive psychiatric and medication track, including the 12.05.2025 decisions, the alleged continuation of depot medication after expiry of the original decision period, the later change to Abilify Maintena / aripiprazole depot, possible side effects, possible acute dystonia and whether autism, catatonia risk and somatic causes were adequately assessed.
      9. A joined-up assessment of the full chain of events, rather than treating each fragment as if it existed in isolation.
      10. Review of the 29 May 2026 police search and seizure, including the legal basis, proportionality, scope, handling of technical equipment, possible chilling effect on publication and documentation, and whether the search forms part of a broader pattern of institutional pressure around the Sarah documentation project.
      11. Public support for the call that Sarah can still be reached, including through the petition “She can still be reached — but time is running out for autistic Sarah in catatonia”.

      23. Key case numbers

      • County Governor / Statsforvalteren 2024/43466: main case concerning Sarah, health concerns, coercion, housing, powers of attorney, next of kin and systemic failure.
      • Statsforvalteren 2025/22677: avvisning / handling of complaint concerning involuntary medication at Lovisenberg.
      • Sivilombudet 2025/3259: restricted connection with the outside world during involuntary psychiatric care.
      • Supreme Court 26-085014STR-HRET: visitor-ban case concerning Sarah Eilen Slettvoll, forwarded to the Supreme Court Appeals Committee.
      • Borgarting Court of Appeal 26-037813SAK-BORG/04: visitor-ban appeal track before the Supreme Court.
      • Oslo District Court 25-211254ENE-TOSL/01: original District Court case concerning the visitor ban.
      • Oslo Police District 17044421 / 97136/25-201: police visitor-ban case.
      • Oslo District Court / Borgarting 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08: civil injunction track concerning temporary protection of powers of attorney, next-of-kin status and lawful representation.
      • Report against OUS 17105609 / 14770/26-201: report concerning hospital handling in Sarah’s case.
      • Special Unit 14205080 / 286/26-123: report concerning Oslo Police.
      • UKOM / Norwegian Board of Health Supervision: Veg45x.
      • 29 May 2026 search: police search and seizure connected to the creation and publication of sarahslettvoll.org, documented in the site’s post on the search and surveillance footage.

      24. Main documentation and entry points

      For readers who want to verify the documentation directly, begin here:

      Final note

      This case is about documentation, due process and Sarah’s own rights.

      It is about whether a severely injured autistic woman’s previously expressed will can be made meaningless by institutional practice, procedural fragmentation and a visitor ban treated as if it overrides every other legal relationship.

      It is about whether autism can be ignored because it was not properly registered by the healthcare system.

      It is about whether coercive psychiatric treatment and depot antipsychotic medication before a catastrophic injury can be treated as unrelated background instead of part of the medically relevant timeline.

      It is about whether potentially rehabilitative contact with a familiar, trusted and chosen support person can be dismissed without independent medical testing.

      It is about whether a public-interest documentation project can itself become the target of police search and seizure once it begins to expose contradictions in institutional handling.

      The documents show that the pieces are now on the board.

      The question is whether the rules will finally be followed.

      Sarah can still be reached.

      She must be reached before it is too late.

      #Justice4Sarah #SarahLever

  • Sarah Eilen Slettvoll: she must be reached before it is too late

    Sarah Eilen Slettvoll

    Sarah Eilen Slettvoll: time-critical rehabilitation after the Oslo subway incident

    Sarah Eilen Slettvoll was severely injured after the subway incident at Jernbanetorget in Oslo on 24 November 2025. More than five months later, she remains in a severe, non-communicative condition. The urgent question now is whether controlled contact with the support person she herself chose may help trigger response, communication or rehabilitation.

    Status as of May 2026

    • Person: Sarah Eilen Slettvoll, born 09.02.1995.
    • Incident: Struck by the subway at Jernbanetorget in Oslo on 24.11.2025.
    • Current situation: Severely injured, non-communicative / catatonic or almost unable to express her own will.
    • Time factor: More than five months have passed since the incident. A possible rehabilitation window may be closing.
    • Documented role: Sarah signed several powers of attorney to Per Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen from 25.10.2024 to 23.11.2025.
    • Urgent question: Whether controlled contact with her chosen support person may help trigger response, communication or rehabilitation.

    Documented in the case

    • The subway incident on 24.11.2025 was reported by several Norwegian media outlets, including Aftenposten, NRK, TV 2, VG, Dagbladet, Vårt Oslo, Nettavisen/Avisa Oslo and Document.no.
    • Several signed powers of attorney exist from the period 25.10.2024 to 23.11.2025.
    • The Norwegian Parliamentary Ombud reviewed in 2025 issues concerning a complaint about restrictions on Sarah’s contact with the outside world during involuntary psychiatric care.
    • The restraining order has been handled by Oslo District Court and Borgarting Court of Appeal.
    • There are registered police reports and case numbers concerning the hospital, the police and the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs.
    • There is video documentation from the incident and the subsequent handling at Jernbanetorget.
    • There is a photo and a video clip from 24.11.2025, a few hours before the incident, where Sarah says: “I can’t focus”.
    • There is a central timeline issue in that the hospital was reported to the police on 09.12.2025 at 03:18, while Oslo University Hospital later the same day at 15:10 sent a communication to the police that was later used as part of the basis for the restraining order case.

    Urgent question

    Why has it not immediately been attempted, or at least independently assessed, whether controlled contact with Sarah’s chosen support person may help trigger response, communication or rehabilitation?

    This website has been created to gather documentation, timeline and central questions in the case. Its purpose is not to replace independent investigation, but to make the documentation publicly available so that journalists, lawyers, healthcare professionals, supervisory authorities and the public can review the case.

    This case should not primarily be understood as a dispute about visitation. It should be understood as a time-critical medical, legal and ethical situation.

    Sarah is severely injured after the incident on 24 November 2025. She is described as non-communicative / catatonic or almost unable to express her own will. At the same time, she is cut off from contact with a person to whom she repeatedly gave powers of attorney before the incident.

    There is therefore a concrete and time-critical question whether controlled contact with a familiar safe person may be relevant as rehabilitative and communicative stimulation.

    Key documents

    Short timeline

    This timeline provides an overview. Full documentation and sources follow below.

    • 25.10.2024–23.11.2025: Sarah signs repeated powers of attorney documenting her wish for assistance, representation and support.
    • 05.11.2024: An urgent concern report is sent to the County Governor concerning Sarah’s health, HIV treatment, nutrition, possible electrolyte imbalance and need for comprehensive assessment.
    • 12.05.2025: Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital issues decisions restricting contact with the outside world and imposing involuntary medication.
    • 18.06.2025: The Norwegian Parliamentary Ombud asks the Supervisory Commission for Lovisenberg to process the complaint concerning restricted contact.
    • 07.07.2025: The time limit for the involuntary medication decision expires according to the case documentation. It must be investigated whether medication effects or treatment regime continued after this.
    • 23.11.2025: Sarah signs a new power of attorney the day before the subway incident.
    • 24.11.2025 around 12:08: A photo and short video of Sarah are taken. In the video she says: “I can’t focus”.
    • 24.11.2025 at 15:28: The police incident time for the subway incident at Jernbanetorget.
    • 24.11.2025 after 16:00: Sarah is brought up from the track area.
    • 24.11.2025 at 16:03: Document.no later refers to video documentation showing observed signs of life on the stretcher.
    • 27.11.2025: Documentation is sent to Oslo University Hospital concerning powers of attorney, representation and nearest-relative status.
    • 05.12.2025: Oslo University Hospital states that it relates to the guardian and persons registered as relatives in its patient record system.
    • 09.12.2025 at 03:18: The hospital is reported to the police for matters concerning gross breach of official duty and unlawful obstruction of power of attorney in a critical patient situation.
    • 09.12.2025 at 15:10: Oslo University Hospital’s lawyer sends an email/letter to the police. This communication is later used as part of the basis for the police case on 23.12.2025, but appears in the evidence list to be incorrectly dated 23.12.2025.
    • 23.12.2025: The police open a case/report against me and impose a restraining order until 23.12.2026, where Oslo University Hospital’s communication forms part of the basis.
    • 28.01.2026: Oslo District Court upholds the restraining order.
    • 30.03.2026: Borgarting Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal and upholds the restraining order.

    Current situation and rehabilitation window

    The subway incident occurred on 24 November 2025. As of May 2026, more than five months have passed.

    In cases of severe brain injury, time is not just a matter of calendar days. Time concerns rehabilitation potential, stimulation, response, neurological plasticity, mobilisation and communication. The longer a patient remains without targeted and individually adapted stimulation, the greater the risk that possible functions will not be regained.

    Sarah is described as catatonic, non-communicative or almost unable to express her own will. She therefore cannot explain what she wants, whom she wants near her, what she remembers, what she responds to, or what support may help her.

    In such a situation, it is not enough to refer to calm, shielding or formal restrictions. The question must be what may actually help the patient.

    Before the incident, Sarah had a long-standing relationship with me, Per Øyvind Notsure Norli Karlsen. She repeatedly gave me powers of attorney over time, including powers of attorney dated 21 November and 23 November 2025, just days and one day before the incident.

    It is therefore not merely personally relevant that she be allowed to hear a familiar voice, sense a familiar presence, recognise smell, words, rhythm, memories or safety. It may be medically and rehabilitatively relevant.

    It is not possible to guarantee that such contact will produce a response. But precisely because the possibility cannot be excluded, it must be properly assessed.

    What should happen immediately

    An independent medical and rehabilitation assessment should urgently be carried out to determine whether Sarah may benefit from controlled contact with her chosen support person.

    This can be done safely:

    • with healthcare personnel present
    • as a time-limited visit
    • with a clear purpose: observation of response
    • with neurological or rehabilitation assessment before and after
    • with gradual testing of voice, smell, familiar words, memories and presence
    • with audio or video recording if considered necessary
    • without this implying free or uncontrolled contact

    The point is not to bypass safety. The point is to try what may be medically relevant while it can still matter.

    If Sarah can still be reached, she must be reached now.

    The powers of attorney and Sarah’s documented will

    A decisive point in this case is that my role as support person, representative and nearest relative is not based on post hoc claims. It is based on repeated powers of attorney signed by Sarah over time.

    These powers of attorney show continuity. This was not a single declaration in an unclear moment. There are documented powers of attorney from October 2024 to November 2025.

    Signed powers of attorney

    The power of attorney dated 23 November 2025 is particularly important. It was signed the day before the incident at Jernbanetorget. If Sarah documented the day before the incident whom she wanted as support person and representative, later authorities cannot treat her will as unknown or irrelevant without a heavy and documented justification.

    This is the core rights issue: Sarah’s last documented will before she was severely injured must be taken seriously.

    The Parliamentary Ombud and previous contact restrictions

    The issue of contact, power of attorney and complaint rights did not arise only after the subway incident.

    The Norwegian Parliamentary Ombud had already in June 2025 handled a case concerning a complaint about restrictions on contact with the outside world during involuntary psychiatric care.

    The Ombud’s letter dated 18.06.2025:
    The Norwegian Parliamentary Ombud: case concerning complaint over restrictions on contact with the outside world during involuntary psychiatric care

    The Ombud asked the Supervisory Commission for Lovisenberg to process the complaint over the decision of 12 May 2025, either by considering it on the merits or by issuing a reasoned dismissal. If the Supervisory Commission believed there was no right of complaint, this had to be formalised.

    This shows that contact restrictions, complaint rights and representation were already a rule-of-law issue before the incident. When the same pattern later repeats after a life-threatening injury, the seriousness increases significantly.

    The subway incident on 24 November 2025

    On 24 November 2025, Sarah was struck by the subway at Jernbanetorget.

    The police incident time was 15:28. The time 15:38 was when the police notified the media, not the actual start time of the incident. This distinction is crucial.

    Several media outlets reported the incident the same day, mainly without naming Sarah. The coverage described, among other things, a full stop in subway traffic, serious injuries and members of the public filming.

    Aftenposten on the incident, 24.11.2025
    Vårt Oslo on the incident, 24.11.2025
    Dagbladet on the incident, 24.11.2025
    VG on the incident, 24.11.2025
    TV 2 live report, 24.11.2025

    The question of 35 minutes before life-saving treatment

    One of the most serious points in the case concerns the timeline for life-saving treatment.

    The police incident time was 15:28. This must be distinguished from 15:38, when the police notified the media. Document.no later updated its article and referred to video documentation where, according to the article, signs of life were observed on the stretcher at 16:03.

    Document.no, published 24.11.2025 and updated 25.04.2026

    If the police incident time of 15:28 is used, this means a time span of 35 minutes until observed signs of life at 16:03.

    TV 2 quotes police operations leader Kristine Hedly as stating that the person had suffered serious injuries and “received life-saving treatment after being brought up from the track”.

    “Operations leader Kristine Hedly tells TV 2 that the person is said to have suffered serious injuries, and received life-saving treatment after being brought up from the track. The person has been taken to hospital by ambulance, with unclear injury severity.”

    TV 2: Person struck by subway at Jernbanetorget in Oslo

    This is a serious statement. When TV 2 quotes the police operations leader as saying that life-saving treatment was given after the person was brought up from the track, this must be compared with the available video documentation indicating that Sarah was first brought up after 16:00, and Document.no’s reference to observed signs of life at 16:03.

    This raises the question whether life-saving treatment in fact first began after Sarah had been brought up from the track, more than half an hour after the incident at 15:28.

    Was Sarah lying in the track area for more than half an hour after being struck, with severe neck injuries and poor respiration, without life-saving treatment actually being initiated before she was brought up?

    This question is crucial because Sarah was later described as having three fractures in her neck, a minor brain haemorrhage, MRI-verified brain injury, liver injury and a critical somatic condition. Even a minor brain haemorrhage is relevant in this context, because the timeline for respiration, oxygenation, immobilisation, circulation and actual life-saving treatment may affect overall injury severity, secondary injury, prognosis and later rehabilitation possibilities.

    If Sarah was during this period misjudged as lifeless, dead, without realistic survival prospects or given lower priority than her actual condition required, it must be investigated whether this misjudgement may have contributed to worsened injury severity or reduced rehabilitation potential.

    It must therefore be investigated:

    • when Sarah was first assessed as alive
    • when respiration, pulse and level of consciousness were actually checked
    • whether she received life-saving treatment while still in the track area
    • whether life-saving treatment only started after she was brought up
    • whether the neck injuries affected the ability to provide help in the track area
    • whether any assumption of death, lifelessness or intentional action affected prioritisation
    • whether misjudgement of condition, delayed life-saving treatment or insufficient respiratory/circulatory follow-up may have contributed to worsened brain injury, secondary injury or other injury severity

    This must also be assessed in light of my role as nearest relative, representative, support person and witness to the course of events. If I was both present, had relevant observations of the incident and had a documented role as Sarah’s chosen support person, the later exclusion from Sarah and from information about her condition becomes even more serious.

    The question is not simply whether the emergency services did their best in a difficult situation. The question is whether the first critical minutes were based on a correct factual understanding of Sarah’s condition, and whether later police, hospital and court handling has shielded this timeline from real scrutiny.

    Video documentation from 24 November 2025

    The videos are published because they illuminate timeline, course of events, public behaviour and the question of signs of life.

    Video 1: Early phase outside Jernbanetorget station, around 15:30–15:33

    Video 1: Early phase outside Jernbanetorget station, around 15:30–15:33.

    Video 2: Footage from inside the platform area shortly after the incident

    Video 2: Personally filmed from inside the platform area. The link starts at the relevant timestamp.

    Video 3: Footage from outside, shortly before the stretcher comes up, around 16:10–16:20

    Video 3: Filmed from outside, shortly before the stretcher comes up, around 16:10–16:20.

    The videos must be assessed as documentation, not sensational material. They are relevant because they may illuminate whether the police’s original understanding of the incident was correct, whether eyewitnesses described a fall rather than a jump, and whether the timeline for signs of life and medical handling is accurately presented.

    Lovisenberg, involuntary medication and possible acute dystonia

    Already in November 2024, a concern report was sent to the County Governor regarding Sarah’s health. The concern involved, among other things, HIV, possible failure in medical follow-up, nutrition, fluid intake, possible electrolyte imbalance, psychiatric deterioration and the need for comprehensive medical and psychiatric assessment.

    The core issue in this part of the case is that Sarah’s symptoms over time may have been understood too narrowly as primarily psychiatric, especially linked to the diagnosis paranoid schizophrenia. It must be investigated whether somatic, neurological, trauma-related and neurodivergent explanations were sufficiently assessed.

    This particularly concerns:

    • nutrition and fluid intake
    • possible electrolyte imbalance
    • HIV treatment and somatic vulnerability
    • ADHD-related issues
    • possible autism / Asperger profile
    • trauma burden / C-PTSD
    • possible side effects of antipsychotic medication

    The involuntary medication decision of 12 May 2025

    On 12 May 2025, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital issued a decision on involuntary treatment with medication under the Norwegian Mental Health Care Act §§ 4-4 and 4-4 a.

    The complaint against involuntary medication was not examined on the merits by the County Governor. It was dismissed on the grounds that I allegedly had no right of complaint, including because Lovisenberg had stated that I was not registered as nearest relative, and because the power of attorney dated 5 May 2025 was not accepted as a basis.

    As a result, a central question was never actually examined:

    Was the involuntary medication medically sound, legally valid and properly assessed against Sarah’s actual health condition?

    This is particularly serious because warnings already existed about somatic and neurologically relevant factors. If such factors were not sufficiently assessed, antipsychotic involuntary treatment may have been used as a substitute for the comprehensive assessment Sarah needed.

    According to the case documentation, the decision was time-limited until 7 July 2025. It must therefore be investigated whether medication, depot effects or treatment regime continued to affect Sarah after this date, and if so whether there was sufficient legal and medical basis.

    Photo and video from the day of the incident: possible acute dystonia and pronounced focus difficulties

    A photo and a short video clip taken on 24 November 2025, a few hours before the subway incident, show symptoms that in my assessment must be considered in relation to possible acute dystonia, medication effects, neurological/somatic condition and lack of comprehensive medical follow-up.

    Sarah Eilen Slettvoll on 24 November 2025, a few hours before the subway incident

    Photo taken on 24 November 2025, a few hours before the subway incident. In my assessment, the photo shows symptoms that should be considered in relation to possible acute dystonia and medical/neurological effects.

    Video clip taken the same day and in the same timeframe. In the clip, Sarah clearly says: “I can’t focus”.

    The video is particularly relevant because Sarah herself, a few hours before the subway incident, states that she cannot focus. This is a concrete and time-proximate observation of functional impairment, not merely a later interpretation.

    Pronounced focus difficulties at this time must be assessed in context with her overall health situation, previous involuntary medication, possible medication effects, possible acute dystonia, nutrition/fluid problems, possible electrolyte imbalance, neurological/somatic vulnerability and the later incident the same day.

    The point is not to make a final diagnosis based on one photo or a three-second video clip. The point is that the material shows concrete, time-proximate signs that should have triggered medical assessment. When Sarah herself says she cannot focus, a few hours before she is later struck by the subway, this is plainly relevant to assessment of function, orientation, acute health condition and possible contributing causes to the incident.

    The question must therefore be:

    Did involuntary medication, possible medication side effects, acute dystonia, somatic failure, lack of assessment or exclusion of her support person contribute to functional impairment, distress, disorientation or medical deterioration before the incident?

    Oslo University Hospital, the police and the restraining order

    After the incident, documentation was sent to Oslo University Hospital concerning powers of attorney, representation rights and nearest-relative status.

    Correspondence with the hospital concerning the patient, powers of attorney and Sarah Eilen Slettvoll

    Oslo University Hospital later stated that it related to the County Governor, appointed guardian and persons registered as relatives in the hospital’s patient record system. This meant that Sarah’s own powers of attorney and last documented will did not have the practical effect they, in my view, should have had.

    On 9 December 2025 at 03:18, the hospital was reported to the police for matters that, in my view, concern gross breach of official duty and unlawful obstruction of power of attorney in a critical patient situation.

    Case number for the police report against the hospital: 17105609 / 14770/26-201

    Time of police report: 09.12.2025 at 03:18

    Criminal case created: 03.03.2026

    Later the same day, on 9 December 2025 at 15:10, Oslo University Hospital’s lawyer sent an email/letter to the police. This communication from the hospital was later used as part of the basis for the police case on 23 December 2025, including the report against me and the restraining order concerning Sarah.

    This timing is highly important: the hospital’s communication to the police came after the hospital had already been reported to the police earlier that night. If the hospital’s letter to the police was later used as a premise for the restraining order, it must be investigated whether the police and the court assessed that the hospital was not a neutral source of information, but itself a party in a reported matter.

    An additional serious point is that Oslo University Hospital’s communication appears in the police evidence list to be incorrectly dated 23.12.2025, despite the documentation showing that it is from 09.12.2025 at 15:10.

    This raises questions about the evidence presentation and timeline in the restraining order case. If a document from Oslo University Hospital was actually sent on 09.12.2025 at 15:10, but appears in the evidence list as if it were from 23.12.2025, this may obscure that the hospital’s police communication came the same day the hospital had first been reported to the police.

    This is relevant because the sequence of events may change the understanding of the entire factual basis:

    • first, the hospital was reported to the police on 09.12.2025 at 03:18
    • then, Oslo University Hospital sent a communication to the police on 09.12.2025 at 15:10
    • later, the police report and restraining order on 23.12.2025 were based partly on Oslo University Hospital’s communication
    • in the evidence list, Oslo University Hospital’s communication appears to be incorrectly dated 23.12.2025

    This raises a serious question of case contamination: whether the hospital, after itself being reported to the police, contributed to a risk narrative to the police that was later used as the basis for the restraining order and further exclusion from Sarah.

    The restraining order

    On 23 December 2025, the police imposed a restraining order against me concerning Sarah, lasting until 23 December 2026.

    • Police case / restraining order: 17044421 / 97136/25-201
    • Oslo District Court: 25-211254ENE-TOSL/01
    • Borgarting Court of Appeal: 26-037813SAK-BORG/04

    Oslo District Court ruling in the restraining order case

    Police / district court case documents

    A request for reversal was also submitted:

    Request for reversal in case 25-211254ENE-TOSL/01

    Borgarting Court of Appeal later dismissed the appeal and upheld the restraining order.

    Document collection 26-037813SAK-BORG/04

    A central problem is that, in my view, the Court of Appeal relied on a picture where my role as support person and representative was not recognised, despite the powers of attorney and the documented history.

    The restraining order is therefore not only an order directed at me. It also affects Sarah’s ability to have contact with a person she herself had chosen, in a situation where she cannot speak for herself.

    Media coverage and the Norwegian Code of Ethics, section 4.9

    After the incident, media coverage quickly shifted toward public filming, laughter, chaos and morality. This is understandable if such behaviour actually occurred. The problem is that this framing may have pushed more important questions into the background:

    • What actually happened to Sarah?
    • Was the incident a fall, a jump or something else?
    • When was she understood to be alive?
    • When was life-saving treatment actually initiated?
    • Did the police’s first narrative remain uncorrected?
    • Why have major newsrooms not updated their coverage after new information?

    NRK published a story already at 15:42 in which the police asked members of the public to behave. This was only 14 minutes after the police incident time of 15:28, and before the time Document.no later refers to as the first observed signs of life on the stretcher at 16:03.

    NRK, published 24.11.2025 at 15:42

    Aftenposten later published a story alleging that people filmed and laughed while emergency personnel took out a severely injured patient. In the headline, the person is described as “a person in the crisis of their life”.

    Aftenposten: “Filmed and laughed while emergency personnel took out a severely injured patient”

    Nettavisen/Avisa Oslo also published an early story about the police reaction toward filming bystanders.

    Nettavisen/Avisa Oslo: “Police scolded bystanders: Shame on you”

    The problem is not that the media should have ignored public behaviour. The problem is that this framing may have become the main narrative, while questions about the actual course of events, signs of life, medical handling, powers of attorney and ongoing rights violations disappeared.

    The Norwegian Code of Ethics, section 4.9

    Section 4.9 of the Norwegian Code of Ethics concerns reporting on suicide and attempted suicide. It requires sobriety, consideration and caution.

    The Norwegian Code of Ethics, section 4.9

    These are important considerations. But section 4.9 cannot be used to prevent necessary correction, documentation or investigative journalism concerning possible system failure, possible misinformation and an ongoing life-threatening rights situation.

    The Norwegian Editors’ Association’s guide states that suicide is a serious social issue that the media both should and can cover, and that caution must be balanced against public interest.

    Norwegian Editors’ Association: guide to reporting on suicide

    Caution does not mean silence.

    Document.no is, as far as I know, the only newsroom that has updated its original article after new information concerning eyewitnesses, the fall/jump issue and signs of life at 16:03.

    Document.no, updated 25.04.2026

    Requests have also been sent to Aftenposten asking for correction and follow-up:

    Police reports and registered cases

    This case does not consist only of public posts and claims. It also includes concrete legal processes, police reports and registered case numbers.

    Interim injunction

    An interim injunction was requested to stop the ongoing rights violations after the incident, particularly concerning the restraining order and Oslo University Hospital’s disregard of powers of attorney.

    Oslo District Court: 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08

    Document collection 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08

    Police report against Lovisenberg and FACT St. Hanshaugen

    A police report has been filed against Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital AS and FACT St. Hanshaugen.

    Police report against Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital AS and FACT St. Hanshaugen

    The report concerns, in my view, serious matters related to treatment and follow-up before the subway incident, including involuntary psychiatric care, involuntary medication, lack of comprehensive assessment and exclusion of Sarah’s chosen support person.

    The police case after the subway incident

    Case number: 17014112

    Matter: Death / attempted suicide

    Created: 24.11.2025

    This case number is important because it concerns the police’s original categorisation and handling of the incident.

    Police report against the police to the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs

    The police have been reported to the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs.

    Case/reference number: 14205080 / 286/26-123

    Nature of the matter: Grossly negligent breach of official duty by police

    Date of incident: 24.11.2025

    Confirmation of reported matter to the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs

    Earlier restraining order and dismissals

    There is also documentation concerning a lifted restraining order and dismissed earlier cases. This is relevant because earlier suspicion, restraining orders or dismissed matters may have been used as premises in later assessments.

    What must be investigated

    The case must be investigated as a whole. It is insufficient to treat it as isolated matters: one psychiatric case, one subway incident, one restraining order case, one media case and one conflict about nearest-relative rights.

    The following questions must be investigated:

    1. Whether Sarah’s somatic condition, including nutrition, fluids, electrolytes and HIV follow-up, was properly assessed before psychiatric conclusions were relied upon.
    2. Whether the diagnosis paranoid schizophrenia was used too narrowly, without real assessment of autism/ADHD, trauma and somatic differential diagnoses.
    3. Whether the involuntary medication decision of 12 May 2025 was medically sound and legally valid.
    4. Whether medication, depot effects or treatment regime continued after 7 July 2025 without sufficient basis.
    5. Whether the photo and video clip from 24 November 2025, where Sarah shows possible acute dystonia and herself says “I can’t focus”, should have triggered acute medical assessment before the subway incident later the same day.
    6. Whether involuntary medication, isolation and contact restrictions may have contributed to functional impairment, distress or disorientation before the incident.
    7. Why the powers of attorney, especially the power of attorney dated 23 November 2025, were not given decisive weight after the incident.
    8. Whether Oslo University Hospital had sufficient basis to reject the powers of attorney and nearest-relative status.
    9. Whether Oslo University Hospital’s communication to the police on 09.12.2025 at 15:10 contributed to establishing an incorrect or incomplete risk narrative after the hospital had already been reported to the police the same day at 03:18.
    10. Why Oslo University Hospital’s communication from 09.12.2025 at 15:10 appears in the police evidence list to be incorrectly dated 23.12.2025, and whether this affected the court’s understanding of timeline, party position and factual basis.
    11. Whether the police report and restraining order on 23.12.2025 were based on a case-contaminated presentation from Oslo University Hospital, where the hospital was not assessed as a party in a matter already reported to the police.
    12. Whether the police restraining order is based on contaminated or incomplete premises.
    13. Whether the district court and court of appeal sufficiently assessed the powers of attorney, the Ombud’s handling, video material and eyewitness information.
    14. Whether the police’s original information about “intentional action” was properly based on available information.
    15. Whether Sarah, after being struck at 15:28, lay in the track area with three neck fractures, minor brain haemorrhage and poor respiration without life-saving help actually being initiated before she was brought up after 16:00, and whether first observed signs of life at 16:03 indicate that she may have been misjudged as lifeless or without realistic survival prospects.
    16. Whether any misjudgement of Sarah’s condition during the first 35 minutes affected respiration, oxygenation, immobilisation, acute treatment, injury severity, secondary injury, prognosis and later rehabilitation possibilities.
    17. Whether the exclusion of nearest relative, representative, support person and witness has prevented scrutiny of the acute handling and timeline for life-saving treatment.
    18. Whether the media’s early focus on public filming pushed questions about acute handling, signs of life and the actual course of events out of public view.
    19. Whether section 4.9 of the Norwegian Code of Ethics has been used as a justification for lack of correction and follow-up, rather than as a rule for careful but necessary reporting.
    20. Whether Sarah is now being denied a real rehabilitation opportunity because formal restrictions prevent controlled contact with the support person she chose.

    What this website asks for

    This website does not ask the public to uncritically accept one party’s account.

    It asks for something more basic:

    • independent medical assessment of Sarah’s current rehabilitation possibilities
    • independent assessment of whether controlled contact with her chosen support person should be attempted
    • investigation of involuntary medication, isolation and somatic follow-up before the incident
    • investigation of the acute handling on 24 November 2025
    • investigation of Oslo University Hospital’s rejection of powers of attorney and nearest-relative status
    • investigation of the police restraining order and its factual basis
    • correction and follow-up from media outlets that have reported the incident on incomplete or flawed grounds

    Sarah does not need more administrative calm if “calm” in practice means isolation from the person she herself chose.

    She needs a real chance to be reached.

    It must happen now.

    Petition

    A petition has been created for Sarah’s case.

    Sign and share:
    https://c.org/XRnrF4J8YN

    Further reading on sarahslettvoll.org

    For those who want to read the case chronologically and more personally, these posts are particularly important:

    Sources and documentation

    1. Photo of Sarah Eilen Slettvoll used in the first Facebook post and Change.org campaign.
    2. Photo from 24.11.2025, a few hours before the incident, showing symptoms compatible with acute dystonia.
    3. Video clip from 24.11.2025, where Sarah says: “I can’t focus”.
    4. Power of attorney signed 25.10.2024.
    5. Power of attorney dated 30.11.2024.
    6. Power of attorney dated 05.05.2025.
    7. Power of attorney dated 06.09.2025.
    8. Power of attorney dated 21.11.2025.
    9. Power of attorney dated 23.11.2025.
    10. Norwegian Parliamentary Ombud, letter 18.06.2025.
    11. Aftenposten: person struck by subway in central Oslo.
    12. Aftenposten: filmed and laughed while emergency personnel took out a severely injured patient.
    13. NRK: person struck by subway in Oslo.
    14. TV 2: person struck by subway at Jernbanetorget.
    15. Nettavisen/Avisa Oslo: police scolded bystanders.
    16. Vårt Oslo: chaotic conditions after subway incident.
    17. Vårt Oslo: statement from incident commander.
    18. Dagbladet: person struck by subway.
    19. VG: one person struck by subway at Jernbanetorget.
    20. Document.no: article updated 25.04.2026.
    21. Norwegian Code of Ethics, section 4.9.
    22. Norwegian Editors’ Association: guide to reporting on suicide.
    23. Video 1: early phase outside Jernbanetorget.
    24. Video 2: footage from inside the platform area.
    25. Video 3: footage from outside before the stretcher comes up.
    26. Document collection 25-210512TVI-TOSL/08.
    27. Document collection 26-037813SAK-BORG/04.
    28. Oslo District Court ruling 25-211254ENE-TOSL/01.
    29. Request for reversal.
    30. Complete case documents in the restraining order case.
    31. Email with preliminary submission of video evidence.
    32. Email with additional documentation concerning submission timing.
    33. Request to Aftenposten concerning documented discrepancy.
    34. Final request to Aftenposten.
    35. Police report against Lovisenberg and FACT St. Hanshaugen.
    36. Correspondence with the hospital concerning powers of attorney.
    37. Confirmation of reported matter to the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs.
    38. Lifting of restraining order 20.11.2025.
    39. Notice of dismissal 20.11.2025.
    40. Police notice 21.11.2025.

    Hashtags:
    #SarahLives
    #Justice4Sarah
    #SarahEilenSlettvoll
    #RuleOfLaw
    #PatientRights
    #CoercivePsychiatry
    #Autism
    #HealthcareAccountability
    #PressEthics
    #ParliamentaryOmbud
    #PoliceAccountability
    #Jernbanetorget