Photo: The Canadian Press
A judge at the Queen’s Bank of Alberta Court has ruled that it is not unconstitutional for a candidate for a double lung transplant to be removed from the transplant list for his or her refusal to take a vaccine against COVID-19.
Earlier this year, Annette Lewis filed a lawsuit against Alberta Health Services, an Alberta hospital and several doctors from the Edmonton lung transplant program.
He claimed that the requirement to take what he called “the experimental injection of COVID-19” as a prerequisite for life-saving surgery is a violation of his fundamental freedom of conscience, the right to life, liberty. and security and the right to be free from arbitrariness. discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The woman was diagnosed with terminal idiopathic lung fibrosis in 2018 and was warned that she would not survive if she did not receive a double lung transplant.
As of January 2020, he was warned that he should receive a number of vaccines, including childhood vaccines, as his vaccination history could not be located and verified. She accepted and received multiple shots. It was placed on the waiting list in June 2020
In March 2021, Lewis was told that in order to receive a double-lung transplant, he would have to get the COVID-19 vaccine. So far, 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 choose what goes into my body, and I can’t be denied a life-saving treatment because I chose not to do an experimental treatment for a condition -Covid-19- that I don’t have and I may never have. ”
In setting out the facts of the case, Judge R. Paul Belzil notes that vaccination against COVID-19 is the only precondition for transplant that Lewis has not met, but has never stated that he has a recognized medical exemption for take the vaccine. .
The Edmonton Lung Transplant (LTP) program explained that lung donors are a scarce resource and LTP has a waiting list mortality of approximately 20%, meaning that one in five patients on the waiting list will die before the transplant.
He stated that to honor the gift of donors and maximize the usefulness of a scarce treatment resource, the LTP strives to select candidates so that they provide organs to both those who need it most and those who have the best chance of make them short and long. survival out. This approach recognizes the ethical obligations that the LTP has with the donor, the donor family, the recipient, and other candidates who could also benefit from the body.
LTP requires that candidates be as medically optimized as possible for a successful lung transplant. He also notes that the postoperative immunocompromised state of transplant patients makes the recipient very susceptible to infection.
The statement of fact also notes that COVID-19 has been a major challenge for the LTP. In the fourth wave of the pandemic between September and November 2021, LTP experienced a mortality rate in COVID-19-infected lung transplant recipients of nearly 40%. The transplant recipients who died had no chance of getting vaccinated before the transplant and most received their injections 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 that an unvaccinated patient could pose to other transplant recipients. .
In his sentencing, Judge Belzil said that while it is indisputable that Lewis is the sole arbiter of what happens to his body and that he accepts that his concerns about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines are deeply rooted. , does not accept that his beliefs and desire to protect his bodily integrity gave him the right to affect the rights of other patients.
He did not accept that the sincerity and depth of his beliefs create legal rights that otherwise do not exist. He also said no one is entitled to receive a lung transplant.
In the written judgment filed in the Queen’s Bank Court in Edmonton on July 12, Judge Belzil concludes that the Charter has no application to clinical treatment decisions made by treating physicians and, in particular, has no application to physicians. treators who establish preconditions for the lung. transplant.
It dismissed the original claim in its entirety.