Connect with us

Alberta

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

Published

4 years ago

6 minute read

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. Health Canada has placed warning labels on the Covid vaccines for adverse events such as blood clotting, myocarditis, pericarditis, and Bell’s Palsy.
  4. 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.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
International / 24 mins ago

Biden autopen scandal: Did unelected aides commit fraud during his final days in office?

Business / 2 hours ago

Conservatives demand probe into Liberal vaccine injury program’s $50m mismanagement

Business / 4 hours ago

Canada must address its birth tourism problem

Alberta

Median workers in Alberta could receive 72% more under Alberta Pension Plan compared to Canada Pension Plan

Published on July 15, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes

Moving from the CPP to a provincial pension plan would generate savings for Albertans in the form of lower contribution rates (which could be used to increase private retirement savings while receiving the same pension benefits as the CPP under the new provincial pension), finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Due to Alberta’s comparatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate through a separate provincial pension plan while receiving the same benefits as under the CPP,” said Tegan Hill, director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Illustrating the Potential of an Alberta Pension Plan.

Assuming Albertans invested the savings from moving to a provincial pension plan into a private retirement account, and assuming a contribution rate of 5.85 per cent, workers earning the median income in Alberta ($53,061 in 2025) could accrue a stream of retirement payments totalling $454,741 (pre-tax)—a 71.6 per cent increase from their stream of CPP payments ($264,968).

Put differently, under the CPP, a median worker receives a total of $264,968 in retirement income over their life. If an Alberta worker saved the difference between what they pay now into the CPP and what they would pay into a new provincial plan, the income they would receive in retirement increases. If the contribution rate for the new provincial plan was 5.85 per cent—the lower of the available estimates—the increase in retirement income would total $189,773 (or an increase of 71.6 per cent).

If the contribution rate for a new Alberta pension plan was 8.21 per cent—the higher of the available estimates—a median Alberta worker would still receive an additional $64,672 in retirement income over their life, a marked increase of 24.4 per cent compared to the CPP alone.

Put differently, assuming a contribution rate of 8.21 per cent, Albertan workers earning the median income could accrue a stream of retirement payments totaling $329,640 (pre-tax) under a provincial pension plan—a 24.4 per cent increase from their stream of CPP payments.

“While the full costs and benefits of a provincial pension plan must be considered, its clear that Albertans could benefit from higher retirement payments under a provincial pension plan, compared to the CPP,” Hill said.

Illustrating the Potential of an Alberta Pension Plan

  • Due to Alberta’s comparatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate with a separate provincial pension plan, compared with the CPP, while receiving the same benefits as under the CPP.
  • Put differently, moving from the CPP to a provincial pension plan would generate savings for Albertans, which could be used to increase private retirement income. This essay assesses the potential savings for Albertans of moving to a provincial pension plan. It also estimates an Albertan’s potential increase in total retirement income, if those savings were invested in a private account.
  • Depending on the contribution rate used for an Alberta pension plan (APP), ranging from 5.85 to 8.2 percent, an individual earning the CPP’s yearly maximum pensionable earnings ($71,300 in 2025), would accrue a stream of retirement payments under the total APP (APP plus private retirement savings), yielding a total retirement income of between $429,524 and $584,235. This would be 22.9 to 67.1 percent higher, respectively, than their stream of CPP payments ($349,545).
  • An individual earning the median income in Alberta ($53,061 in 2025), would accrue a stream of retirement payments under the total APP (APP plus private retirement savings), yielding a total retirement income of between $329,640 and $454,741, which is between 24.4 percent to 71.6 percent higher, respectively, than their stream of CPP payments ($264,968).

 

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Joel Emes

Joel Emes

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta ban on men in women’s sports doesn’t apply to athletes from other provinces

Published on July 15, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Alberta’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Act bans transgender males from women’s sports within the province but cannot regulate out-of-province transgender athletes.

Alberta’s ban on gender-confused males competing in women’s sports will not apply to out-of-province athletes.

In an interview posted July 12 by the Canadian Press, Alberta Tourism and Sport Minister Andrew Boitchenko revealed that Alberta does not have the jurisdiction to regulate out-of-province, gender-confused males from competing against female athletes.

“We don’t have authority to regulate athletes from different jurisdictions,” he said in an interview.

Ministry spokeswoman Vanessa Gomez further explained that while Alberta passed legislation to protect women within their province, outside sporting organizations are bound by federal or international guidelines.

As a result, Albertan female athletes will be spared from competing against men during provincial competition but must face male competitors during inter-provincial events.

In December, Alberta passed the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act to prevent biological men who claim to be women from competing in women’s sports. The legislation will take effect on September 1 and will apply to all school boards, universities, as well as provincial sports organizations.

The move comes after studies have repeatedly revealed what almost everyone already knew was true, namely, that males have a considerable advantage over women in athletics.

Indeed, a recent study published in Sports Medicine found that a year of “transgender” hormone drugs results in “very modest changes” in the inherent strength advantages of men.

Additionally, male athletes competing in women’s sports are known to be violent, especially toward female athletes who oppose their dominance in women’s sports.

In February, Andres ranted about why men should be able to compete in women’s competitions, calling for “the Ontario lifter” who opposes this, apparently referring to powerlifter April Hutchinson, to “die painfully.”

Interestingly, while Andres was suspended for six months for issuing death threats, Hutchinson was suspended for two years after publicly condemning him for stealing victories from women and then mocking his female competitors on social media. Her suspension was later reduced to a year.

Continue Reading

Trending

X