I think we have already said too much about an individual case. I have explained what I base my comments on.
OK, you don't want to discuss this further, I understand. It was a genuine question on my end, though. I honestly can't see any reason at all to believe that this situation, after all that has happened so far, would suddenly and spontaneously make a 180 and turn into something that would actually help Holger instead of continuing to harm him, traumatize him, and violate his human rights. I hope I'm wrong about that, of course. But I feel there are way too many red flags, a few examples:
As Holger's brother has shared before, the psychiatrists allegedly believe they can cure Holger in a few weeks, provided they can section him/treat him behind locked doors.
I believe a fair question would be: why won't they offer to treat him at home, while respecting his legal right to informed consent and to be an active participant in the planning of said treatment?
Is sectioning in a psychiatric ward commonly presented as the first and only option for severely ill people potentially suffering from malnutrition, but with a different main diagnosis than ME; for example cancer, MS, lupus, Parkinson's..?
Why are they so adamant that his family needs to be kept away from him during treatment? In Sweden close family members have legal rights when it comes to information, participation and support (if the patient has given their consent).
What's the evidence for the planned treatment, and what are the risks? What other alternatives are there? Does the treatment take PEM and the risks associated with over-exertion into consideration? Has Holger been given this information in a way that makes it possible for him to understand it, assess the risks, and to decide for himself if he wants to give his consent - in line with his legal rights?
So far they have kept ignoring Holger's needs relating to his illness, which is a violation of his legal rights as a patient. They are denying his ME diagnosis, which is a major patient safety issue. They are denying him accomodations in relation to PEM, sensory sensitivities etc, also a major patient safety issue. They are denying him the practical support that would allow him to communicate his needs, wishes etc to the healthcare providers (for example allowing a family member to be present, or hiring an appropriate interpreter), which again is a violation of his legal rights as a patient.
And so on.