Showing posts with label Prescription obstruction. Show all posts

Chromatic v The NHS: On the Logistics of Discrimination and the Administration of Breath

🪞SWANK LOG ENTRY

The Prescription of Punishment

Or, Why the NHS Believes a Breathless Mother Should Collect Her Own Oxygen

Filed: 2 November 2024
Reference Code: SWK-ASTHMA-DISCRIMINATION-2024-11
PDF Filename: 2024-11-02_SWANK_Letter_Westminster_NHSPrescriptionBarrier.pdf
One-Line Summary: Polly Chromatic explains why she still cannot access biological asthma treatment — because the system requires breath before it provides breathing support.

I. What Happened

On 1 November 2024, Polly Chromatic attended a respiratory appointment at Brompton. The subject: biological asthma treatment, the only long-term solution for eosinophilic asthma — a condition she and all four of her children have.

The conclusion? She still hasn’t started treatment.

Why?
Because the NHS insists she physically pick up prescriptions each month, speak by phone to an uncooperative GP, and solve systemic failures… while she can’t breathe.

This is what happens when reasonable adjustments are refused — and asthma becomes a test of stamina rather than a clinical diagnosis.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This message reveals a structural absurdity in disability care:

Monthly prescription pickup is mandatory, despite chronic breathlessness
Digital options (e.g. NHS app) are blocked
No alternative plan has been offered
Pharmacy staff had to offer the only workable solution
The GP has been consistently unhelpful

This is not a clinical failure — it’s a logistical one, with discriminatory consequences.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because “you must collect your own oxygen while struggling to breathe” is not a policy — it’s performance art.

Because access to biological treatment shouldn’t require superhuman endurance or administrative warfare.

Because no health system that calls itself compassionate should punish people for the very symptoms it refuses to accommodate.

And because asthma management shouldn’t depend on whether a disabled mother can out-navigate a GP receptionist.

IV. Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Failure to provide reasonable adjustments for chronic disability
Article 8 ECHR – Infringement on private and family life through medical obstruction
Clinical Negligence – Prolonged lack of access to treatment due to procedural design
Administrative Cruelty – Expecting the breathless to chase breath
Safeguarding Sabotage – Refusal to facilitate stable medical care for an asthmatic family

V. SWANK’s Position

We consider this email a case study in infrastructural discrimination: the kind that doesn’t scream in your face — it just whispers, “call again tomorrow.”

The NHS did not deny Polly care outright. It simply created conditions where accessing that care would require either superhuman coordination or the miraculous suspension of all asthma symptoms.

Let the archive reflect: the issue is not that she hasn’t tried — it’s that they haven’t.

And in the time it takes for one GP to return a phone call, another child’s lungs tighten.

⚖️ 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.

Failure to Correct Prescription Dose: NHS and Council Obstruct Access to Life-Saving Treatment

⟡ “The Dose Is Wrong and You Know It”: When Access to Medicine Becomes a Monthly Siege ⟡
A sick woman begs for the correct dose of a life-saving drug. The reply? Silence — and a 50mg shortfall.

Filed: 12 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC-NHS/RX-044
📎 Download PDF – 2024-12-14_SWANK_EMAIL_WCC-NHS_Prescription-Obstruction.pdf
Email to NHS and council contacts alerting them to an under-dosed prescription blocking access to biological treatment. No correction was made.

I. What Happened
On 14 December 2024, Polly Chromatic wrote to NHS liaison Dr Philip Reid, with council and legal parties copied, regarding a critical prescription error. Royal Brompton Hospital had confirmed that she required a dose of 250mg in order to proceed with biological treatment — yet the prescription held by the GP stated only 200mg.

This discrepancy, left uncorrected, blocked her access to care.

In that same message, she noted the absurd regularity with which her medications became inaccessible — a ritual humiliation repeated monthly. Despite life-threatening asthma, despite consultant confirmation, despite email upon email — the dose was wrong, and the system shrugged.

There was no apology. No amendment. No clinical urgency. Just inertia, weaponised by familiarity.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

Neglect of duty by prescribing bodies and GP liaison
Breach of continuity of care standards under NHS Constitution
Obstruction of life-saving treatment through administrative indifference
Disability-based medical neglect: systemic delay in required asthma care
Compounded safeguarding risk via uncorrected prescriptions and unrelieved harassment

This was not a clerical oversight. It was pharmacological negligence, sustained and ignored.

III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because underdosing is not an accident when it recurs with such precision.
Because no one with specialist-confirmed treatment requirements should be forced to beg for the correct numbers on a digital form.
Because a 50mg shortfall becomes lethal when the patient is already struggling to breathe — and has been for decades.
Because institutions now treat medicine the way they treat communication: as something a disabled woman must earn.

SWANK records this not as a symptom, but as a structure. A system in which survival is conditional on obedience — and dosage is a disciplinary mechanism.

IV. SWANK’s Position
This was not just the wrong dose.
This was a denial of access to life-saving treatment, by design or by habitual disdain.
This wasn’t a prescription. It was a procedural snare.
SWANK does not accept healthcare that withholds on a technicality. Nor do we accept silence as dosage.

We document every refusal, every delay, every underdose.
Because until the systems that make women sick are held to account, every 50mg matters.

⟡ 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.

Standards & Whinges Against Negligent Kingdoms (SWANK London Ltd.)

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion