⟡ The GP Who Refused to Reply While I Couldn’t Breathe ⟡
Filed: 21 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GMC/2025-REID-COMPLAINT
📎 Download PDF — 2025-05-21_SWANK_GMC_Complaint_DrPhilipReid_DisabilityNeglect_Abandonment_SafeguardingRetaliation.pdf
I. Not an Omission. A Decision to Abandon.
This complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC) documents a period of calculated silence from Dr Philip Reid, a GP who:
Was informed of a medically certified written-only communication adjustment
Was aware of ongoing trauma-induced respiratory collapse
Was notified of active safeguarding misuse and retaliation
And chose to offer no intervention, no safeguarding referral, no record of care
This wasn’t oversight.
It was a professional refusal to act when action was the bare minimum.
II. When “Primary Care” Refuses to Care
The submitted evidence outlines:
Failure to respond to documented updates
Ignorance of pre-established disability status
No coordination with safeguarding bodies despite knowledge of procedural retaliation
And a pattern of institutional loyalty over patient protection
In Reid’s case, silence wasn’t neutrality.
It was allegiance to the abusive machinery.
He was the GP on file.
But he served the file, not the patient.
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because doctors are not permitted to recuse themselves when patients are inconvenient.
Because safeguarding cannot be weaponised without complicity from those who remain “neutral.”
Because the refusal to act in the face of procedural violence is an ethical breach, not a scheduling error.
Let the record show:
The GP was informed
The diagnosis was clear
The adjustment was lawful
The need was urgent
And SWANK — filed the breach before the breath gave out
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not believe that silence is a medical strategy.
We do not permit regulatory professionals to ghost their ethical obligations.
We do not consider trauma-informed care optional when trauma is state-administered.
Let the record show:
The GP stayed quiet.
The retaliation escalated.
The patient declined.
And SWANK — issued the indictment with timestamps attached.
This is not a complaint about poor service.
It is a clinical abandonment report, typed in oxygen and evidence.
.