⟡ “We Haven’t Forgotten About King — We’re Just Not Treating Him.” ⟡
A Holding Pattern in a Paediatric Surgery Queue: Delay Without Escalation, Impact Without Urgency
Filed: 25 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/UCLH/PAEDIATRIC-DELAY
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-25_SWANK_Communication_UCLH_PaediatricSurgeryDelay_King.pdf
A hospital update confirming that paediatric surgery is on hold indefinitely, despite the child’s worsening condition and risk.
I. What Happened
On 4 June 2025, the Surgical Bookings Team at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust sent an email to Polly Chromatic regarding her son, King. The message confirmed that surgery had not been scheduled. No estimated date. No explanation. Just reassurance that the team "hasn’t forgotten" and that they’re "trying their best."
The email stated the procedure could not go ahead until “further information” was obtained — without specifying what, from whom, or by when. In the meantime, the family was instructed to seek emergency care from a local dentist, despite the fact that specialist intervention was already determined to be necessary.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Indefinite delay in paediatric dental surgery despite clinical need
No risk timeline, case priority, or escalation pathway communicated
Emotional and physical suffering of a disabled child treated as a matter of scheduling
Institutional tone: gentle indifference wrapped in procedural fog
Safeguarding concerns obscured beneath medical vagueness
Disabled child’s pain and deterioration absorbed into clinical silence
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because delayed treatment is still a form of harm — especially when the subject is a disabled child whose condition was already triaged as surgical. This was not a delay due to emergency surge or national crisis. This was a delay due to institutional inertia.
UCLH did not explain what was missing.
They did not contact the family’s doctor.
They did not escalate the risk.
They simply wrote: we haven’t forgotten about King.
As if memory counts as medicine.
As if delay does not corrode trust, and pain does not accumulate.
IV. Violations
Children Act 1989 – Failure to act in the best interests of the child
Equality Act 2010 – Indirect discrimination by failing to expedite care for a disabled patient
Human Rights Act 1998 – Interference with physical integrity and medical access (Article 8)
NHS Constitution for England – Right to receive treatment within a reasonable timeframe
Safeguarding principles – Failure to mitigate avoidable harm through timely care
V. SWANK’s Position
SWANK does not consider administrative memory an adequate substitute for medical urgency. The clinical team’s refusal to provide a timeline, justification, or pathway to escalation reflects systemic disregard for paediatric patients in pain.
This wasn’t a postponement.
It was a polite medical shrug.
And SWANK documents every shrug.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.
This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.
© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.