@Shiloh & Rhonda (GA) it would appear that the most recent update is here
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/swe19544E.pdf
The reasoning for taking an animal from the owner is still very clearly stated as being
"The county administrative board shall decide that an animal shall be taken in charge by the police authority if: the animal is gratuitously subjected to suffering and nothing is done to remedy the situation despite a request to this effect by the control authority; a decision adopted pursuant to section 26, which is of significant relevance to animal welfare, is not complied with; a decision adopted pursuant to section 29 is not complied with; the person who has the animal in his care has been convicted of cruelty to animals pursuant to chapter 16, section 13, of the Penal Code; or the person who has the animal in his care has repeatedly been convicted of offences pursuant to sections 36 or 36 a or has repeatedly been the subject of decisions pursuant to section 26. Section 32 (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 31, point 1, concerning requests and remedies, the county administrative board, the control authority or the police authority shall decide that an animal which has been subjected to suffering shall be taken in charge forthwith, where: there is no prospect of the fault being remedied; the owner of the animal is unknown or cannot be found; or for any other cause this is considered absolutely necessary in the interests of animal welfare. (2)"
Again, in this case there is every possibility of the fault being remedied. Oreo Joe is not being gratuitously subjected to suffering (apart from potentially by this "vet") and Bonnie is doing everything possible to remedy the situation.
@Bonnie & Oreo Joe it would appear that what you need immediately (as this will put a stay on any order made) is to find just ONE vet in the entire of Sweden who agrees that high dose diabetes/IAA/Acromegaly can be treated successfully and without undue suffering. Start making those phone calls - every last vet in the country if that's what it takes!
And "vet" Ellen, since we know you're reading. You misdiagnosed this cat. You incorrectly applied a diagnosis of hypothyroidism (which is incredibly rare as a primary condition in cats and should NEVER be assumed to be primary until all other options are exhausted) and treated for that instead of pursuing the underlying condition which was almost certain to exist simply because he's a cat. You cannot claim that to be a lie because you prescribed levothyroxine, which is only used for hypothyroidism. When you found out (apparently because the veterinarian board told you, not because you figured it out yourself), you wanted to euthanize - to attempt to cover your mistake, maybe? This cat suffered as a result of YOUR actions, while Bonnie has done everything in her power to obtain appropriate treatment - your incorrect diagnosis and your inappropriate treatment. If this were my cat, I would be pursuing costs for assisting in treating a situation that has quite possibly been made much worse by your mistake and where certainly this cat did suffer for some time as a direct result of the owner trusting you as a qualified veterinarian as you insisted she did. Trust that you still demand she places in you while you put limits on the amount of insulin you will permit her to give - limits that are so low for a high dose cat that you are still clearly attempting to force euthanasia over any sort of reasonable treatment attempt. There is no reason whatsoever for Bonnie to trust your opinion, nor to hold back on making it entirely clear to the authorities that the mistakes here were yours, while she attempted to obtain a correct diagnosis and treatment that worked by trusting you as you demanded. Treatment she is still entitled to pursue, since you continue to refuse it, in the best interests of her cat's welfare - very likely with another vet at this point.