Friday, August 25, 2023

Chronicles of Annette: Let the martyrdom begin.

To no one's surprise, the pathetic opportunists at Rebel News are already monetizing the recent passing of disqualified transplant candidate Sheila Annette Lewis, and depicting her as a stalwart, courageous freedom fighter, standing up to the outrageous unfairness of medical discrimination and apartheid ...

... rather than as a gullible, addlepated victim of sleazy, ethically-challenged grifters^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lawyers who convinced Lewis to soldier on for years, fighting a case that they absolutely knew they had no chance of winning. And now that Lewis is dead because she stupidly listened to those ghouls, it's everyone's fault but theirs, of course.

You can read that entire gorge-rising piece over at the Internet's Wayback Machine, where you don't need to give Rebel's profiteers off of misery the clicks.


AFTERSNARK: Related to this sleazy idiocy at that Der Rebel article:

Understand something clearly -- Lewis' diagnosis was terminal. She was told pointedly and unambiguously that, without a double lung transplant, she would die. There is no dispute about this point -- she knew it, the doctors knew it and told her, her lawyers knew it. Everyone knew that there was no possibility of remission or a miraculous recovery. They knew. And yet, all of the after-the-fact rationalization claims that Lewis was wary of the "risks" of a new vaccine.


"Without it, you will die" would seem to trump any hypothetical risks, and yet her creepy lawyers relentlessly pushed Lewis to refuse the vaccine while losing court case after court case and knowing that outcome was not going to change, so I am going to ask a legal-type question here:

If Lewis' lawyers encouraged her to keep appealing her case while surely knowing that there was no chance of winning (which they should have after the first ruling, and certainly after the appeal), are they in any way culpable in her death?

Can any competent and responsible lawyer read those two rulings, then seriously suggest, "Yeah, we think you have a real shot at the Supreme Court?" And if not, well, I ask again about culpability.


Anonymous said...

I think an equally valid question is, "Now that this issue has been resolved all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, is there any lawyer STILL encouraging their anti-vaccine client to fight this?" How would that not be the height of irresponsibility?

This issue is settled. Period. How could any lawyer ethically encourage their client to try the same stunt?

Anonymous said...

I'm not recommending this link by some idiot who blames everyone except the sleazy lawyers:

But he goes on about her standing up for her "bodily autonomy" even though she wanted to have someone else's lungs transplanted into her body. Was she going to insist that her donor be unvaccinated? Was she going to inqure into their lifestyle?


Anonymous said...

Hey, what's wrong with sleazy monetizing? Who are you to critique the Rebel's business model?
I did enjoy the fact that Ezra has completely ignored the catastrophe unfolding in the NWT, but somehow managed to find the bucks to jet to New Zealand for Avi's book launch, the intergalactic best seller "Why I Lied About Assaulting My Ex for the Sake of Our Kids".