In a blow that will surely cost lives, the Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed the hopes of terminally ill transplant patients to have a choice to be vaccinated, upholding an earlier judgment in favour of AHS.

Astonishingly, the decision from the three-justice panel showed unanimous agreement that the charter has no place in determining a course of treatment: “In this case, the charter does not apply to the (doctors’) exercise of clinical judgments in formulating pre-conditions to organ transplant, including requiring vaccination against COVID-19 in the wake of the pandemic.”

How is it logical to give a terminally ill patient an experimental drug that continues to cause healthy people to drop dead? It is a catch-all…if they don’t take the ‘vaccine’ they will die without their transplant, if they do take it, they can become too sick to be eligible for the transplant…if they even survive the vax in their weakened state.

Sheila Annette Lewis fights, not only for herself but on behalf of every transplant patient, knowing that, unchallenged, this ruling constitutes a death sentence for each of them. The medical system is playing Russian roulette with their lives before their transplant can even begin.

Can it even be said that we are still in “the wake of a pandemic”? Despite efforts to convince us otherwise numerous countries have moved on, dropping restrictions in favour of recovery. Leaders, such as Biden, have even verbally declared it to be over, and millions of people around the world agree.

Referencing our Charter and the Alberta Bill of Rights, Ms. Lewis argued that the Covid-19 vaccine policy infringed on her rights of conscience, life, liberty, security of the person and equality. We firmly agree that an individuals’ choice to be vaccinated, or receive any medical interventions, for any purpose most definitely speaks to charter-protected rights. The fight continues with Ms. Allison Pejovic, Lewis’s lawyer, considering an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

We stand with those who stand with our Charter and look forward to a better outcome in the appeal.

To read the article written by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, click here