Breathing While Brilliant: A Medical Record from the Royal Brompton Archives
⟡ Filed in Defence of Lungs, Logic, and the Inconvenient Truth of Medical Documentation
IN THE MATTER OF: Eosinophilic Asthma, Diagnostic Authority, and the Failure of Non-Experts to Comprehend a Clinical Baseline
⟡ METADATA
Filed: 19 September 2016
Reference Code: SWANK-RBH-ASTHMA-DX
Court File Name: 2016-09-19_Records_AsthmaRoyalBrompton
Summary: This document, issued by one of the United Kingdom’s most respected respiratory centres, confirms a diagnosis of eosinophilic asthma and outlines the specialist management plan required. It is a foundational medical artefact in the archive of procedural betrayal — ignored by institutions, yet undeniable in its authority.
I. What Happened
In 2016, the patient — Polly Chromatic (then recorded under her legal name) — was formally diagnosed at Royal Brompton Hospital with eosinophilic asthma. This diagnosis, a serious chronic inflammatory condition, requires specialist treatment and shielding from respiratory triggers. The document outlines the clinical significance of her condition, the need for consistent medical management, and the necessity of avoiding unnecessary stress, infection exposure, and institutional incompetence.
II. What the Record Establishes
That the author suffers from severe eosinophilic asthma, confirmed by specialists
That her symptoms are not psychosomatic, overblown, or exaggerated — but clinically documented
That she is entitled to disability protections, medical accommodations, and respectful safeguarding
That any agency disregarding this record is acting not only in negligence, but in contempt of science
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because in the world of safeguarding theatre, mothers with medical records are dangerous — they expose the gap between policy and fact. Because when the state accuses you of exaggeration, you produce Royal Brompton documentation. And because the best evidence is the kind written by experts, stamped with institutional gravity, and left unread by everyone who should know better.
IV. Violations (by those who ignored it)
Disability discrimination through disregard of clinical risk
Endangerment by forcing participation in triggering environments
Failure to implement care plan recommendations
Breach of reasonable adjustment duties under the Equality Act
Ongoing mental and physical harm through disbelief and procedural dismissal
V. SWANK’s Position
We log this entry as Exhibit A in the Failure to Believe Women’s Health archive. We affirm:
That specialist diagnosis does not require social work interpretation
That respiratory disability deserves more than performative safeguarding
That ignoring a Royal Brompton report while enforcing surveillance is a form of clinical abuse
And that if you can't pronounce "eosinophilic," you probably shouldn't be managing the case