⟡ £275 for Sanity: Psychiatric Follow-Up as Gatekeeping Ritual ⟡
Filed: 15 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/MH/HSMH-RAFIQ-FOLLOWUP
📎 Download PDF — 2025-04-15_SWANK_HSMH_RafiqFollowUpQuote_PsychiatricSixMonthReview.pdf
I. When Mental Health Becomes an Appointment Code
This document, extracted from a clinical exchange with Harley Street Mental Health, outlines the cost and conditions for continuing psychiatric oversight with Dr Rafiq.
It is not a crisis plan.
It is not treatment.
It is a price tag, delicately phrased.
30 minutes of follow-up
£275 per virtual appearance
Recommendation to book “towards the start of June,” because mental health must evidently be scheduled around availability
II. What It Reveals (Without Admitting)
The patient was already under formal psychiatric care
The clinic anticipates a six-month review — a moment of medical renewal
Ongoing therapeutic engagement is presumed, packaged, and tethered to cost
Mental health is here acknowledged, managed, and invoiced. The only thing not offered is urgency.
III. Why SWANK Filed This
Because in every tribunal, hearing, or safeguarding review, the burden of proof for sanity still rests on the disabled, the disbelieved, and the over-diagnosed.
This record asserts:
Psychiatric supervision exists
Engagement has been proactive
The clinical system is not neglected — it is paying its own meter
To be mentally well is not enough. One must purchase the right to be seen as such.
IV. SWANK’s Position
We do not believe that credibility should depend on one's ability to pre-book a psychiatrist.
We do not accept the monetisation of stability as a prerequisite for respect.
We do not confuse mental health access with mental health justice.
Let the archive reflect:
The patient complied
The follow-up was offered
The price was set
This was not support.
It was subscription-based legitimacy.
⟡ 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.