• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Taking COVID vaccine-refusing patient off transplant wait list doesn't violate Charter

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
From the CBC today:

It's not unconstitutional to refuse an organ transplant to a woman who refuses to get the COVID-19 vaccine, an Edmonton judge has ruled.

Annette Lewis went to court seeking to preserve her spot on an Edmonton-based transplant program's wait-list after doctors told her she would not be eligible because she is not immunized against COVID-19.

In a decision filed Tuesday, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Paul Belzil dismissed Lewis's argument that her Charter rights had been violated.

He ruled the Charter has no application to clinical treatment decisions and, in particular, has no application to doctors establishing criteria for organ transplantation. There is a publication ban on identifying the specific organ.

[...]

Decisions to add a patient to the transplant list are made by a committee of medical experts who consider the recipients' severity of need and likelihood of survival.

Court heard that because these organ donors are scarce, one in five people on the Edmonton wait-list die before getting a transplant.

[...]

In his reasons for decision, Belzil agreed that it was "beyond dispute" that Lewis is the sole decision-maker about what goes into her body and that she is entitled to her beliefs about vaccines.

"I do not accept however, that her beliefs and desire to protect her bodily integrity entitle her to impact the rights of other patients or the integrity of the [transplant program] generally," the judge said. "No one has a right to receive [organ] transplants and no one is forced to undergo transplantation surgery."

Belzil also found that if Lewis' application were successful, it would have significant negative public policy implications, be unfair to other patients and disrupt the transplant program.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/covid-19-vaccine-transplant-charter-rights-1.6518642

Thoughts?

Personally, I think this is a reasonable decision. As the judge pointed out, nobody has the right to a donor organ, and this decision was made for sound medical reasons.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
From the CBC today:



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/covid-19-vaccine-transplant-charter-rights-1.6518642

Thoughts?

Personally, I think this is a reasonable decision. As the judge pointed out, nobody has the right to a donor organ, and this decision was made for sound medical reasons.

I agree with the decision

Why? It seems very extreme to me.

Doesn't the person have the right to their position in line on the organ waiting list? The idea of cutting in lines never seemed fair to me, I can't forgive the idea when it comes to lines of life and death.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Why? It seems very extreme to me.

Doesn't the person have the right to their position in line on the organ waiting list? The idea of cutting in lines never seemed fair to me, I can't forgive the idea when it comes to lines of life and death.

Well, no one is guaranteed to recieve na organ or even be placed on the transplant list. And many people get booted from the lists for not following doctors proscriptions. Such being up to date on required vaccinations.

Coming out of an organ transplant your body is placed on immunosuppressants sometimes for months. To ensure the body doesn't reject it. So it could be something about safety of the patient. I'm not a doctor though.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
"Belzil also found that if Lewis' application were successful, it would have significant negative public policy implications, be unfair to other patients and disrupt the transplant program." [ibid]

In what way? I'm not a big fan of anti-vaxxers but the decision sounds punitive.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Why? It seems very extreme to me.
How is it extreme?

Doesn't the person have the right to their position in line on the organ waiting list? The idea of cutting in lines never seemed fair to me, I can't forgive the idea when it comes to lines of life and death.
There isn't a "line" per se. The decision about who gets the next organ is based on medical criteria like your prognosis without the transplant and the likelihood for you that a transplant would be successful.

Someone who decides not to take a reasonable step to mitigate infection risk - just as they get ready to go on strong immunosuppressants in the middle of a pandemic - has significantly increased the likelihood that the transplant will be unsuccessful. If the people overseeing the recipient list think that the risk has increased so much that the patient is no longer a reasonable candidate for a donor organ, I respect their decision.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
"Belzil also found that if Lewis' application were successful, it would have significant negative public policy implications, be unfair to other patients and disrupt the transplant program." [ibid]

In what way? I'm not a big fan of anti-vaxxers but the decision sounds punitive.
When a donor organ gets rejected by its recipient because of a preventable infection, this means that the organ that could have gone to saving someone's life has been wasted.

If this starts happening on a large scale, it could disrupt the program overall.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
From the CBC today:



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/covid-19-vaccine-transplant-charter-rights-1.6518642

Thoughts?

Personally, I think this is a reasonable decision. As the judge pointed out, nobody has the right to a donor organ, and this decision was made for sound medical reasons.
So it creates another class of people now.

This person was taken off a list for a personal decision and denied for a personal decision not even related to another condition.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Why? It seems very extreme to me.

Doesn't the person have the right to their position in line on the organ waiting list? The idea of cutting in lines never seemed fair to me, I can't forgive the idea when it comes to lines of life and death.
Exactly and over something not even related to the condition.

Just another case of intentionally classifying a group and declaring them to be as second class people.

Funny how it's determined by a moderately lethal virus , and not including other diseases and infections.

It's telling volumes.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So it creates another class of people now.
Not really. People could be removed from the recipient list for similar reasons before... e.g. someone who needs a lung transplant but who refuses to stop smoking.

This person was taken off a list for a personal decision and denied for a personal decision not even related to another condition.
They were taken off the list because the risk created by their personal decision meant the likelihood was too high that an organ would be wasted on her.

As the article mentioned, 1 in 5 people on the list die waiting for a transplant. Taking her off means giving hope to someone else, as well as maximizing the number of lives that the program can save.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Not really. People could be removed from the recipient list for similar reasons before... e.g. someone who needs a lung transplant but who refuses to stop smoking.


They were taken off the list because the risk created by their personal decision meant the likelihood was too high that an organ would be wasted on her.

As the article mentioned, 1 in 5 people on the list die waiting for a transplant. Taking her off means giving hope to someone else, as well as maximizing the number of lives that the program can save.
Then it begs the question as to why they were approved, and placed on the list in the first place?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Exactly and over something not even related to the condition.

Just another case of intentionally classifying a group and declaring them to be as second class people.

Funny how it's determined by a moderately lethal virus , and not including other diseases and infections.

It's telling volumes.
The article mentioned that she was required to be up-to-date on all of her vaccinations to stay on the list. Refusing any of them woukd have gotten her kicked off; as it happens, the only one she refused was COVID.

And "moderately lethal" becomes "extremely lethal" or at least "bad enough that you'll reject your freshly-transplanted organ" when you're hopped up on the immunosuppressants they give you after an organ transplant.
 
Top