Sheila Annette Lewis is a person living in Alberta that needs an organ transplant to save her life. She is not eligible for a transplant because the medical authorities made a rule that all transplant recipients must have received the COVID-19 “vaccine.”
The medical establishment gives the following reasons for Sheila’s ineligibility. I’ve included some of my related thoughts in-line in italics:
The significant morbidity and mortality risk that COVID-19 presents to unvaccinated and highly immunosuppressed [organ] transplant recipients;
Not a single vaccine in existence provides protection from infection or disease. Rather, they are all intended to prompt an immune system response such that the immune system can provide protection. How much of a difference is this going to make for a person whose immune system (that actually does all of the work) is highly suppressed?
The program’s responsibility to donors and donor families to use donated organs in a manner that provides the best possible outcomes for the graft;
The implication here is that lack of COVID-19 vaccination is somehow tied to worse outcomes from the transplant. What is the actual explanation for this?
The risk that an unvaccinated transplant recipient would pose to other transplant recipients during routine post-operative care;
It has been acknowledged by health authorities that the COVID-19 vaccines do not stop transmission. Therefore how is this criterion even valid?
The scarcity of donors in the context of other vaccinated candidates who could also benefit from a given donor organ;
This implies that vaccinated candidates are better candidates but once again no explanation is given. How can this be the case?
The demonstrated safety, both in initial studies and now surveillance data, of the currently approved and available COVID-19 vaccines, which present negligible risk to [organ] transplant candidates;
To what safety data are they referring?
Ironically this statement tacitly admits to there being risk associated with the COVID-19 “vaccine.” So what is “negligible” exactly?
The attenuated response and resultant protection if the vaccine is administered after transplant; and
Again my question here would be if transplant recipients are highly immunosuppressed could this even make a meaningful difference?
The demonstrated benefit of COVID-19 vaccination before transplant vs. after transplant.
How has this been demonstrated?
Regardless of the purported evidentiary support for these assertions, the legal opinion makes it all moot. Writing for CanadianLawyerMag.com, Zena Olijnyk wrote the following about Sheila’s failed legal case (emphasis mine):
Justice Frederica Schutz, Justice Michelle Crighton and Justice Dawn Pentelechuk wrote in a judgement released on Nov. 8:
“While such decisions are doubtless exceedingly difficult, they nevertheless must be made. In this case, the Charter does not apply to the respondents’ exercise of clinical judgments in formulating pre-conditions to [organ] transplant, including requiring vaccination against COVID-19 in the wake of the pandemic.”
The decision "emphasizes that vaccination status is a choice and that choice can have consequences," says Tim Caulfield, a professor in the faculty of law and school of public health at the University of Alberta. "Given misleading rhetoric about discrimination against unvaccinated, this point is key. There is so much vaccine information, including misinformation about the relevant legal principles. The decision provides some needed clarity."
The key takeaway from all of this is that from a legal “clarity” perspective the medical authorities can make their own rules and these rules are beyond the protections provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The question in part becomes where does this all stop? Are any “rules” and their imposed non-compliance “consequences” off limits? While less drastic than Sheila’s situation, my wife knows someone in the U.S. that was told she would not be eligible for opioid pain medicines if she tested positive for cannabis. This person lives in a U.S. state where cannabis is legal AND she has a medical cannabis card. None of that seems to matter because the medical establishment rules are simply the rules, above all else. I personally find all of this quite troubling but combine it with the ongoing pursuit of greater power by the World Health Organization, powers that supersede the laws of their (supposedly) sovereign member countries, and these events start to reveal a disturbing pattern.
In Sheila’s case, I think at a minimum we have to ask, is the consequence (in this case certain death) imposed by the medical authorities for her not consenting to the mRNA “vaccine” reasonable? The courts have judged that the protections of the Charter do not extend to rules imposed by medical authorities so there doesn’t appear to be a way to challenge them. I think we all need to carefully consider the broader implications of this judgement.
If you would like to support Sheila financially, please consider making a donation.
Thank you for continuing to participate in this conversation. As always I’m interested in knowing your thoughts and insights.
John
Sheila could likely get the transplant done in the United States or perhaps in another province.
Praying for Shila.
Makes no sense to mandate the cvx for anyone for any reason. There is so much info based on fact to guard against such rediculous acts.
Also the pain docs are just now denouncing/nixing the use of thc with pain meds. There was a long period of time that it was fine to do so. It cuts down on the amounts of opioids used. But that makes too much sense in todays atmosphere. Insanity, it seems, is contageous.