Learn Hardcore Finnish: Minusta on tärkeää, että jokaisella potilaalla on oikeus saada hyvää hoitoa. - I think it is important that every patient has the right to receive good care.

Minusta is the elative case (the -sta/-stä form) of minä (“I”). Literally it means “from me”, but in this structure it means “in my opinion / I think”.

Minä = I (subject form)
Minun = my (genitive/possessive)
Minusta = from me → used idiomatically for opinions:
- Minusta tämä on hyvä. = In my opinion, this is good.

So Minusta on tärkeää… ≈ “I think it is important that…”.

How does the structure Minusta on tärkeää, että… work grammatically? Where is the subject?

The main clause is:

Minusta on tärkeää = “(In my opinion) is important”

The actual logical subject is the että-clause that follows:

että jokaisella potilaalla on oikeus saada hyvää hoitoa
= “that every patient has the right to receive good care”

So structurally it’s like:

“(In my opinion) [that every patient has the right to receive good care] is important.”

In Finnish, the että-clause often comes after the main clause like this, and the adjective tärkeää appears in a neutral, partitive form (see next question). There is no separate “it” like in English (It is important that…); Finnish just omits that dummy subject.

Why is it tärkeää and not tärkeä?

Tärkeää is the partitive singular of the adjective tärkeä (“important”).

With expressions like:

On tärkeää, että…
On mahdollista, että…
On hyvä, että…

Finnish usually uses the partitive form of the adjective. This is common when:

The thing described is abstract / not a concrete, countable subject (here, it’s a whole clause).
The structure is a kind of impersonal / general statement.

Compare:

Tämä asia on tärkeä. = This thing is important. (concrete “this thing”, adjective in nominative)
On tärkeää, että… = It is important that… (abstract, clause as subject → adjective in partitive)

So tärkeää here is the natural, idiomatic choice.

What does että do here, and why is there a comma before it?

Että is a subordinating conjunction, roughly equivalent to English “that” in this sentence:

Minusta on tärkeää, että…
= “I think it is important that…”

In Finnish punctuation, a comma is usually placed before että when it introduces a subordinate clause:

Tiedän, että hän tulee. = I know that he is coming.
On hyvä, että tulit. = It is good that you came.

So että works exactly like “that” introducing a content clause, and the comma is simply following standard Finnish comma rules.

What case is jokaisella potilaalla, and why is that case used?

Jokaisella potilaalla is in the adessive case (ending -lla/-llä):

jokainen potilas = every patient (dictionary forms)
jokaisella potilaalla = on/at every patient → “every patient” in the possessor role

Finnish uses the pattern:

Jollakin on jokin = Someone has something

Literally: “On someone is something” → that someone has it.

Here:

jokaisella potilaalla on oikeus
literally: “on every patient is a right” = every patient has a right

So the adessive (-lla) is used because it’s the normal way to mark the possessor in “X has Y” sentences.

How is jokaisella potilaalla formed from jokainen and potilas?

Step by step:

jokainen (each, every) → adessive singular:
- jokaisella (“on each / on every”)
potilas (patient) → stem: potilas → adessive singular:
- potilaalla (“on a patient”)

Together:

jokaisella potilaalla = “on every patient” → “every patient (has …)”

So both words are in adessive singular, agreeing in number and case.

Why is the verb on singular even though we’re talking about many patients?

The grammatical subject is oikeus (right), which is singular:

oikeus = the right
on oikeus = has the right / there is a right

The phrase jokaisella potilaalla is not the subject; it’s the possessor in the “X has Y” structure (marked by adessive).

So:

Subject: oikeus (singular) → verb on (3rd person singular)
Possessor: jokaisella potilaalla (every patient)

That is why the verb is in the singular form on.

What does oikeus saada literally mean, and why is saada in the infinitive?

oikeus = right (as a noun)
saada = to get / to receive / to be allowed to

The pattern is:

olla oikeus + infinitive = “to have the right to do something”

So:

on oikeus saada = “(they) have the right to receive / to get”

The verb saada is in the basic infinitive form because it is directly governed by the noun oikeus in this idiom. It’s just like English “the right to receive”.

Does saada here mean “can / may”, or something else?

Here saada mostly means “to receive, to get”:

oikeus saada hyvää hoitoa = “the right to receive good care”

Semantically, “to have the right to receive” is close to “to be entitled to get / to be allowed to have”, so in meaning it overlaps with English may / can, but grammatically it is still the basic verb “get/receive”, not a modal verb.

So you could paraphrase as:

“the right to receive good care”
or more loosely:
“the right to get good care / the right to be given good care”

Why is hyvää hoitoa in the partitive case? Could I say hyvä hoito instead?

Hyvää hoitoa is:

hyvää = partitive singular of hyvä (good)
hoitoa = partitive singular of hoito (care, treatment)

It is in the partitive because:

Hoito here is an uncountable / mass concept (“care” in general, not one discrete “treatment”).
After saada with such abstract or mass nouns, the partitive is very common:
- saada ruokaa = to get food
- saada apua = to get help
- saada hoitoa = to get care/treatment

Hyvää hoitoa therefore means “some good care / good-quality care” in an indefinite, general sense.

You can say hyvä hoito in nominative, but that would more likely refer to a specific, total treatment seen as a whole, or as a more abstract concept (“good treatment” as a clearly defined thing). In this sentence, hyvää hoitoa is the natural, idiomatic choice.

What exactly does hoito mean here: “care”, “treatment”, or something else?

Hoito can mean several related things, depending on context:

medical care / treatment (what patients receive in healthcare)
nursing / looking after someone
more generally, handling / management of something (e.g. puutarhan hoito = garden care)

In this sentence, because we are talking about patients and their rights, hyvää hoitoa clearly means good medical care / good treatment in the healthcare sense.

Could I say Minun mielestäni on tärkeää, että… instead of Minusta on tärkeää, että…?

Yes. Minun mielestäni and minusta both express “in my opinion”, and both are correct here.

Minusta on tärkeää, että…
Minun mielestäni on tärkeää, että…

The difference is mostly style:

Minusta is shorter and very common in both speech and writing.
Minun mielestäni is slightly more explicit and can feel a bit more formal or emphatic (“in my view / in my opinion”).

In everyday language, Minusta on tärkeää, että… is perfectly natural.

Can the word order be changed? For example, can I say On tärkeää minusta, että jokaisella potilaalla on oikeus saada hyvää hoitoa?

Finnish word order is fairly flexible, but not all permutations are equally natural.

Minusta on tärkeää, että…
This is the most natural ordering here.

You can say:

On minusta tärkeää, että…

This is also correct and can place a bit more emphasis on tärkeää or sound slightly more stylistic.

However:

On tärkeää minusta, että…

is not wrong, but it sounds a bit awkward / less natural; minusta normally comes right after the element it modifies (often directly after the verb on or at the very start of the clause).

So the two best options are:

Minusta on tärkeää, että…
On minusta tärkeää, että…

How might this sentence look in a more colloquial / spoken style?

In speech, people might shorten or slightly simplify, for example:

Mun mielestä on tärkeetä, että jokasella potilaalla on oikeus saada hyvää hoitoa.

Changes you see in very informal spoken Finnish:

minun → mun
mielestäni (or minusta) → mielestä (or just mun mielestä)
tärkeää → tärkeetä (spoken vowel change)
jokaisella → jokasella (spoken simplification)

But in standard written Finnish, the original:

Minusta on tärkeää, että jokaisella potilaalla on oikeus saada hyvää hoitoa.

is the correct and recommended form.