A judge in Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench has ruled it is not unconstitutional to remove a double lung transplant candidate from the transplant list because of her refusal to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Earlier this year, Annette Lewis filed a lawsuit against Alberta Health Services, an Alberta hospital and several doctors at Edmonton’s lung transplant program. She claimed that requiring her to receive what she called “the experimental COVID-19 injection” as a condition for life-saving surgery violated her fundamental freedom of conscience, the right to life, liberty and security and the right to be free from arbitrary discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; The woman was diagnosed with end-stage Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in 2018 and told she would not survive unless she received a double lung transplant. As of January 2020, she was informed that she would need to have a series of vaccinations, including childhood vaccines, as her vaccination history could not be traced and verified. He agreed and had multiple vaccinations. Placed on the waiting list in June 2020 In March 2021, Lewis was told that in order to receive a double lung transplant, she would need to get the COVID-19 vaccine. To date he has refused to do so. In an affidavit filed on May 24, 2022, Lewis stated the following: “Taking this vaccine offends my conscience. I should have a choice about what goes into my body and I can’t be denied a life-saving treatment because I chose not to have an experimental treatment for a condition – Covid-19 – that I don’t have and may never have.” In the statement of the facts of the case, Judge R. Paul Belzil notes that a vaccination for COVID-19 is the only condition for the transplant that Lewis has not met, but she has never claimed to have a recognized medical exemption from receiving the vaccine . The Edmonton Lung Transplant Program (LTP) explained that lung donors are a scarce resource and LTP has a waiting list mortality of about 20%, meaning one in five patients on the waiting list will die before transplant. He said that to honor the gift from donors and maximize the utility of a rare treatment resource, LTP strives to select candidates in a way that provides organs both to those most in need and those with the best chance of short- and long-term survival. . This approach recognizes the ethical obligations that the LTP has to the donor, the donor’s family, the recipient, and other candidates who might also benefit from the organ. LTP requires candidates to be as medically optimized as possible for a successful lung transplant. He also notes that the post-operative immunocompromised state of transplant patients makes a recipient highly susceptible to infection. The statement of facts also notes that COVID-19 has been a significant challenge for LTP. In the fourth wave of the pandemic between September and November 2021, LTP showed a mortality rate in lung transplant recipients infected with COVID-19 of almost 40%. Transplant recipients who died did not have the opportunity for pretransplant vaccinations, and most received the vaccines after surgery. The LTP determined that the absence of a valid medical exemption supported by expert consultation is a contraindication for lung transplantation based on several factors, including the risk an unvaccinated patient could pose to other transplant recipients. In his ruling, Judge Belzil said while there is no question that Lewis is the sole arbiter of what happens in her body and he accepts that her concerns about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines are deep-rooted, he does not accept that her beliefs and The desire to protect her physical integrity gave her the right to affect the rights of other patients. She did not accept that the sincerity and depth of her convictions created legal rights that did not otherwise exist. He also said that no one has the right to receive a lung transplant. In the written decision filed in the Court of Queen’s Bench in Edmonton on July 12, Justice Belzil concludes that the Charter does not apply to clinical treatment decisions made by treating physicians and in particular does not apply to treating physicians prescribing conditions for lung transplantation. He rejected the original application in its entirety.
