Patient threatened with withdrawal of life-saving surgery unless she gets Covid shot

This article is from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. The Justice Centre respectfully asks that you consider sharing this story to help bring attention to the dilemma facing this terminally ill Albertan.

EDMONTON: The University of Alberta Hospital has threatened to take a terminally ill 56-year-old woman off of a donor list for a lung transplant because she has chosen not to receive the new Covid-19 vaccine. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms represents Annette Lewis, who has idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a terminal condition affecting both of her lungs. Ms. Lewis has been suffering with the illness for over two and a half years and waiting for a transplant for over one year. Just two months ago, her lung capacity was at just 40%. Without this transplant, Ms. Lewis will die.

Ms. Lewis provided the Justice Centre with an extended recording (condensed here to include only the discussion about the vaccine) in which a member of the lung transplant team told Ms. Lewis she will be removed from the transplant list if she refuses the shot. (Her oxygen machine which helps her to breathe can be heard in the background.) Below are excerpts from her conversation with the doctor (at minutes 10:15-11:23):

Doctor: “All of our pre-transplant patients are going to be required to have the Covid vaccine.”

Annette: “…if I don’t take the vaccine then I go off the donor list, is that what you mean?”

Doctor: “Yeah.”

Annette: “…wow…that’s pretty scary.”

Doctor: “Yeah.”

Annette: “If I don’t get the vaccine, I’m not going to get the transplant, and we all know what the end result of that is for me.”

Doctor: “Yeah.”

Annette: “It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t in my case.”

Doctor: “Yes.”

Ms. Lewis shared her concerns with the transplant team that, while she has received all other childhood vaccinations again, as per the Lung Transplant Program team’s request, she does not want to receive the experimental Covid vaccine at this time. She does not wish to participate in a new experimental treatment, which is known to have sometimes serious side effects, including permanent disability and death.

Ms. Lewis outlined a number of considerations in her decision to forego receiving the Covid vaccine at this time including:

The vaccines have not been fully authorized by Health Canada. They are being used under “Interim Authorization” in Canada, with human clinical trials continuing until 2023.
Covid vaccines have caused notable side effects, including nearly 7,000 reported deaths between December 2020 and June 2021, according to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
Health Canada has placed warning labels on the Covid vaccines for adverse events such as blood clotting, myocarditis, pericarditis, and Bell’s Palsy.
Finally, informed consent is the standard for all medical interventions. The FDA factsheet for the healthcare provider reads, “The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine.”

Ms. Lewis notes that the Nuremburg Code, which was enacted after WWII following coercive and forced experimentation on captives by German military officials, requires patients to be able to “exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force.”

In a follow up letter dated August 9, 2021, the Hospital advised Ms. Lewis she will not get her transplant without the vaccine. That information was confirmed again in a subsequent telephone conversation that Ms. Lewis had with a member of the Lung Transplant Program team on September 2, 2021, wherein Ms. Lewis was told that she is “number two” on the donor recipient list, but would need to get the Covid-19 vaccines in order to get her transplant.

On September 2, 2021, the Justice Centre wrote a legal demand letter to Dr. Rhea Varughese, Assistant Professor at the Lung Transplant Program at the University of Alberta, regarding the program’s decision to require all patients waiting for a double-lung transplant to submit to the Covid vaccine.

The Justice Centre has demanded that the Lung Transplant Program team at the University of Alberta Hospital provide confirmation within seven days that Ms. Lewis is exempt from any requirement for a Covid-19 vaccine and will remain on the double lung transplant list.

“The hospital’s conduct in making an ultimatum of this nature to a terminally ill patient is coercive and unethical. Threatening a patient’s access to life-saving medical treatment for not participating in an experimental treatment for a condition she does not have and may never get is a profound violation of Ms. Lewis’ human dignity, personal autonomy, and her constitutionally protected right to life, liberty and security of the person,” says Allison Pejovic, a Justice Centre Staff Lawyer.

“If Ms. Lewis is removed from the transplant list she will die. This is a gross violation of her freedom of choice. Having to choose between taking an experimental vaccine that she does not want, or certain death, is not a choice,” Ms. Pejovic concludes.

Up Next

Getting My Blood Glucose Back in the Normal Range Gave Me Tears of Joy

Don't Miss

City clearing the air about masking at recreation centres

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Canada needs serious tax cuts in 2026

Business / 4 hours ago

DOOR TO DOOR: Feds descend on Minneapolis day cares tied to massive fraud

Business / 15 hours ago

Feds pull the plug on small business grants to Minnesota after massive fraud reports

Alberta

Alberta Next Panel calls for less Ottawa—and it could pay off

Published on December 29, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Last Friday, less than a week before Christmas, the Smith government quietly released the final report from its Alberta Next Panel, which assessed Alberta’s role in Canada. Among other things, the panel recommends that the federal government transfer some of its tax revenue to provincial governments so they can assume more control over the delivery of provincial services. Based on Canada’s experience in the 1990s, this plan could deliver real benefits for Albertans and all Canadians.

Federations such as Canada typically work best when governments stick to their constitutional lanes. Indeed, one of the benefits of being a federalist country is that different levels of government assume responsibility for programs they’re best suited to deliver. For example, it’s logical that the federal government handle national defence, while provincial governments are typically best positioned to understand and address the unique health-care and education needs of their citizens.

But there’s currently a mismatch between the share of taxes the provinces collect and the cost of delivering provincial responsibilities (e.g. health care, education, childcare, and social services). As such, Ottawa uses transfers—including the Canada Health Transfer (CHT)—to financially support the provinces in their areas of responsibility. But these funds come with conditions.

Consider health care. To receive CHT payments from Ottawa, provinces must abide by the Canada Health Act, which effectively prevents the provinces from experimenting with new ways of delivering and financing health care—including policies that are successful in other universal health-care countries. Given Canada’s health-care system is one of the developed world’s most expensive universal systems, yet Canadians face some of the longest wait times for physicians and worst access to medical technology (e.g. MRIs) and hospital beds, these restrictions limit badly needed innovation and hurt patients.

To give the provinces more flexibility, the Alberta Next Panel suggests the federal government shift tax points (and transfer GST) to the provinces to better align provincial revenues with provincial responsibilities while eliminating “strings” attached to such federal transfers. In other words, Ottawa would transfer a portion of its tax revenues from the federal income tax and federal sales tax to the provincial government so they have funds to experiment with what works best for their citizens, without conditions on how that money can be used.

According to the Alberta Next Panel poll, at least in Alberta, a majority of citizens support this type of provincial autonomy in delivering provincial programs—and again, it’s paid off before.

In the 1990s, amid a fiscal crisis (greater in scale, but not dissimilar to the one Ottawa faces today), the federal government reduced welfare and social assistance transfers to the provinces while simultaneously removing most of the “strings” attached to these dollars. These reforms allowed the provinces to introduce work incentives, for example, which would have previously triggered a reduction in federal transfers. The change to federal transfers sparked a wave of reforms as the provinces experimented with new ways to improve their welfare programs, and ultimately led to significant innovation that reduced welfare dependency from a high of 3.1 million in 1994 to a low of 1.6 million in 2008, while also reducing government spending on social assistance.

The Smith government’s Alberta Next Panel wants the federal government to transfer some of its tax revenues to the provinces and reduce restrictions on provincial program delivery. As Canada’s experience in the 1990s shows, this could spur real innovation that ultimately improves services for Albertans and all Canadians.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Alberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works

Published on December 28, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The Alberta Next Panel, tasked with advising the Smith government on how the province can better protect its interests and defend its economy, has officially released its report. Two of its key recommendations—to hold a referendum on Alberta leaving the Canada Pension Plan, and to create a commission to review programs like equalization—could lead to meaningful changes to Canada’s system of fiscal federalism (i.e. the financial relationship between Ottawa and the provinces).

The panel stemmed from a growing sense of unfairness in Alberta. From 2007 to 2022, Albertans’ net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion—more than five times the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians (the only other two net contributors). This money from Albertans helps keep taxes lower and fund government services in other provinces. Yet Ottawa continues to impose federal regulations, which disproportionately and negatively impact Alberta’s energy industry.

Albertans were growing tired of this unbalanced relationship. According to a poll by the Angus Reid Institute, nearly half of Albertans believe they get a “raw deal”—that is, they give more than they get—being part of Canada. The Alberta Next Panel survey found that 59 per cent of Albertans believe the federal transfer and equalization system is unfair to Alberta. And a ThinkHQ survey found that more than seven in 10 Albertans feel that federal policies over the past several years hurt their quality of life.

As part of an effort to increase provincial autonomy, amid these frustrations, the panel recommends the Alberta government hold a referendum on leaving the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and establishing its own provincial pension plan.

Albertans typically have higher average incomes and a younger population than the rest of the country, which means they could pay a lower contribution rate under a provincial pension plan while receiving the same level of benefits as the CPP. (These demographic and economic factors are also why Albertans currently make such a large net contribution to the CPP).

The savings from paying a lower contribution rate could result in materially higher income during retirement for Albertans if they’re invested in a private account. One report found that if a typical Albertan invested the savings from paying a lower contribution rate to a provincial pension plan, they could benefit from $189,773 (pre-tax) in additional retirement income.

Clearly, Albertans could see a financial benefit from leaving the CPP, but there are many factors to consider. The government plans to present a detailed report including how the funds would be managed, contribution rates, and implementation plan prior to a referendum.

Then there’s equalization—a program fraught with flaws. The goal of equalization is to ensure provinces can provide reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable tax rates. Ottawa collects taxes from Canadians across the country and then redistributes that money to “have not” provinces. In 2026/27, equalization payments is expected to total $27.2 billion with all provinces except Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan receiving payments.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not they support the principle of the program, but again, it has major flaws that just don’t make sense. Consider the fixed growth rate rule, which mandates that total equalization payments grow each year even when the income differences between recipient and non-recipient provinces narrows. That means Albertans continue paying for a growing program, even when such growth isn’t required to meet the program’s stated objective. The panel recommends that Alberta take a leading role in working with other provinces and the federal government to reform equalization and set up a new Canada Fiscal Commission to review fiscal federalism more broadly.

The Alberta Next Panel is calling for changes to fiscal federalism. Reforms to equalization are clearly needed—and it’s worth exploring the potential of an Alberta pension plan. Indeed, both of these changes could deliver benefits.