Criticism of the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Mariefred Prison, for forcing an inmate to use a catheter to provide a urine sample

Summary of the decision: A prison forced an inmate to attempt to provide a urine sample by using a catheter themselves, this despite the fact that neither the inmate nor prison officers had adequate knowledge of how to use the equipment. No healthcare professional was in attendance during the sampling. The attempt was cut short due to an injury to the inmate.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that taking a urine sample is a form of coercive measure decided on by the Swedish Prison and Probation Service. The person subject to the measure is deprived of liberty and a refusal or inability to provide a urine sample may have real consequences for her or him. The scope for claiming that the measure is voluntary is therefore extremely limited, even with regard to the means by which the sample is to be provided. In the case in question, the inmate had attempted to provide urine samples in the usual manner on several occasions without success, which resulted in warnings being issued. As the prison does not use blood tests, the remaining option was a catheter. Unlike the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, the Parliamentary Ombudsman is of the opinion that in no reasonable sense can it be considered to have been voluntary on the part of the inmate to provide a urine sample in this way.

After the failed attempt, the inmate was required to continue to provide urine samples using a catheter, again without a healthcare professional in attendance. Given how the first attempt went, the Parliamentary Ombudsman considers this to be extremely dubious. All in all, she is severely critical of the prison’s actions.

This is the second time the Parliamentary Ombudsmen have directed severe criticism at prisons for forcing inmates to use catheters to provide urine samples with no healthcare professional in attendance. She considers there to be reason for the Swedish Prison and Probation Service to review its procedures for obtaining samples for drug testing. As the case also relates to medical matters, a copy of the decision has been sent to the Health and Social Care Inspectorate (IVO).