Chromatic v The GP Switchboard: On the Clinical Politics of Breathing and the Silence of the Referral System

---

🪞SWANK LOG ENTRY

The Doctor Appointment Debacle

Or, When the State Refused to Schedule Care and Then Questioned the Health of the Uncared For

---

Filed: 15 October 2024
Reference Code: SWK-HEALTH-OBSTRUCTION-2024-10
PDF Filename: 2024-10-15_SWANK_Letter_Westminster_DoctorAppointmentObstruction.pdf
One-Line Summary: Polly Chromatic documents illness, unconfirmed appointments, GP obstruction, and yet another institutional shrug toward her health and her children's.

---

I. What Happened

At 5:05am on a mid-October morning — the kind of hour reserved for either illness or strategy — Polly Chromatic, feverish and gasping, emailed the institutions tasked with her family’s wellbeing.

She reported:

• Severe sore throat

• Night sweats

• Breathing difficulties

• GP failure to schedule care

• Dr Reid’s failure to confirm anything at all

• Resorting to private treatment because public provision was “uncooperative”

This wasn’t a complaint. It was an evidentiary throat-clearing — if only she could breathe long enough to deliver it in person.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

• Dr Reid had not confirmed any appointments, even amidst escalating symptoms

• The GP actively obstructed access to care

• The Local Authority was fully informed, yet no safeguarding concern was raised about the obstruction itself

• The patient — disabled, exhausted, and asthmatic — was left to arrange private care outside a system allegedly designed to protect her

The implication is clear: your eligibility for NHS care is conditional upon docility.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because this email is a primary exhibit in the criminal negligence of health bureaucracy.

Because the pattern is documented:
→ They obstruct your access to care.
→ Then question your stability when you self-advocate to survive.
→ Then call it “non-engagement” if you don’t call back while wheezing.

Because Polly Chromatic did not send this for sympathy — she sent it for record.

We file it not as a complaint, but as a medical chart for the State itself.

---

IV. Violations

• Article 2 ECHR – Right to life endangered through administrative refusal

• Article 3 ECHR – Inhumane treatment by neglecting basic medical scheduling

• Equality Act 2010 – Failure to provide accommodations for a disabled patient

• Health and Social Care Act 2012 – GP noncompliance with duty to provide or coordinate care

• Safeguarding Breach – Neglect of a medically vulnerable parent with dependents

---

V. SWANK’s Position

We consider this email a patient log, a bureaucratic cross-examination, and an oxygen-deprived submission of defiance.

Let the record reflect:
Polly Chromatic was unwell.
Polly Chromatic asked for care.
Polly Chromatic received nothing but referral loops, digital dead ends, and that uniquely British reply — utter, institutional inertia.

When the system withholds appointments from a breathless woman and then asks why she’s short of patience, the answer is not clinical. It is political.

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. 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. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 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.