“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Showing posts with label false removal claim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label false removal claim. Show all posts

You Didn’t Just Ignore My Asthma. You Rewrote It.


⟡ SWANK Medical Endangerment Archive ⟡

“I Left to Breathe. They Wrote That I Was Removed.”
Filed: 23 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/GSTT/AE-SECURITY-FALSEHOOD-2024
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-23_SWANK_GSTT_Complaint_AENurse_DisabilityDiscrimination_SecurityFalsehood_2Jan2024.pdf

I. The Asthma Was Real. The Removal Was Not.

This complaint, issued formally to Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, concerns an acute asthma incidenton 2 January 2024 — and the nurse who chose protocol over breath.

You arrived in respiratory crisis.
You requested written-only communication.
You disclosed eosinophilic asthma.
You were met with verbal insistence and refusal.

And when you left — for safety, for oxygen, for survival —

they filed it as a removal.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  • Your diagnosis (eosinophilic asthma + muscle dysphonia) requires non-verbal interaction during attacks

  • The nurse on duty:

    • Refused written interaction

    • Withheld basic triage adjustments

    • Endangered your respiratory stability

  • Upon your lawful exit from the facility:

    • A formal note was fabricated, claiming removal by security

    • This narrative was used to shield negligence and preempt complaint

  • The complaint demands:

    • Formal correction of the clinical record

    • Disciplinary review

    • Disability training

    • And, if not received, escalation to the CQC, EHRC, and legal review

This was not miscommunication.

It was respiratory negligence rewritten into defiance.

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because too often, a disabled woman leaving a building is treated not as a medical act, but an affront to control.

We filed this because:

  • You weren’t “removed.”

  • You weren’t disruptive.

  • You were endangered — and then recharacterised to protect the nurse, not the patient.

Let the record show:

  • You requested adjustment.

  • You were ignored.

  • You left voluntarily.

  • And now, the hospital’s lie is filed, annotated, and archived.

IV. SWANK’s Position

We do not accept life-threatening treatment written over with fiction.
We do not accept respiratory needs interpreted as rudeness.
We do not tolerate false claims of removal by institutions desperate to obscure liability.

Let the record show:

The patient left.
The record lied.
The complaint was signed.
And SWANK — has published the correction.

This wasn’t a disruption.
It was self-rescue rebranded as rebellion.

⟡ 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.

© 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.


No comments:

Documented Obsessions