🪞SWANK LOG ENTRY
The Nebuliser Dispatch
Or, How the Kingdom Demanded an Inhaler but Received Accusations Instead
Filed: 18 November 2024
Reference Code: SWK-MEDICAL-DENIAL-2024-11
PDF Filename: 2024-11-18_SWANK_Letter_Westminster_HospitalAsthmaNeglect.pdf
One-Line Summary: A formal request for albuterol turns into a meditation on how public health collapses under the weight of its own prejudice.
I. What Happened
On 18 November 2024, Polly Chromatic (writing under her legal name) issued an email to Westminster Children’s Services, RBKC, and relevant NHS figures demanding a basic, lifesaving provision: albuterol nebules for herself and her children, all diagnosed with eosinophilic asthma.
Why? Because:
GPs wouldn’t administer the treatment.
Hospitals accused her of being “erratic” for requesting it.
Staff retaliated by calling social workers — not by treating patients.
It is a modern public health parable: a woman requests oxygen and receives surveillance.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
This single email outlines a systemic failure spanning three institutions:
Primary Care refuses to treat with nebulisers.
Hospitals punish advocacy by medical profiling and false safeguarding reports.
Social Workers escalate based on personality, not pathology.
The result? Children with asthma are left without treatment, and their mother is defamed for asking them not to die.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because it is not “erratic” to demand breath.
Because whistleblowing in a waiting room shouldn’t lead to a welfare check.
Because no institution should confuse medical literacy with madness.
This email is not a request — it is a diagnostic snapshot of a system that would rather criminalise illness than accommodate it.
The use of the phrase “unless you plan on educating them” is not sarcasm. It’s a policy proposal.
IV. Violations
NHS Duty of Care – Failure to provide or accommodate respiratory treatment
Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination against a disabled mother requesting necessary care
Article 2 ECHR – Right to life endangered by denial of basic asthma care
Article 3 ECHR – Degrading treatment via profiling and institutional retaliation
Safeguarding Weaponisation – Calling social workers in response to advocacy
V. SWANK’s Position
We consider this email a landmark in respiratory resistance.
It is a quiet but devastating record of how the UK system responds to disabled mothers who know their rights: not with medicine, but with menace. And as always, the greatest risk to the institution is not asthma — it is articulation.
What Polly asked for was albuterol. What she exposed was administrative breathlessness.
⚖️ 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.