An earlier version of this story included details about Annette Lewis’ medical condition, which have since been removed to comply with a court-ordered publication ban. A judge in Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench has ruled that it is not unconstitutional to remove an organ candidate from the transplant list because of her refusal to get a vaccine for COVID-19. Earlier this year, Annette Lewis filed a lawsuit against Alberta Health Services, an Alberta hospital and several doctors. 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 the terminal illness in 2018 and told she would not survive without a 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 an organ 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 transplant program explained that organ donors are a scarce resource and that this particular organ has a mortality on the waiting list of about 20%, meaning that one in five patients on the waiting list will die before a transplant. He said that to honor the gift from donors and maximize the utility of a rare treatment resource, the program 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 the program has to the donor, the donor’s family, the recipient, and other candidates who might also benefit from the instrument. The program requires candidates to be as medically optimized as possible for a successful 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 the transplant program. In the fourth wave of the pandemic between September and November 2021, the same program showed a mortality rate of 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 organ transplant program has determined that the absence of a valid medical exemption supported by expert consultation is a contraindication for organ transplantation based on several factors, including the risk an unvaccinated patient might 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 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 organ transplant. He rejected the original application in its entirety.
