A 83-year-old Christian grandmother with cognitive problems was euthanized despite her stated opposition and against her family’s will through Canada’s euthanasia program in July.
According to her family’s horrifying account, great-grandmother Brigitte Stegemann had lived in an Ontario long-term care facility for the final two years of her life. She originally explicitly stated that, due to her Christian beliefs, she didn’t want to be euthanized. About five months before her death, she had been diagnosed with untreatable Stage IV stomach cancer.
While her granddaughter — named Brigette in her grandmother’s honor — who held legal power of attorney was away on vacation, the medical team convinced Stegemann to request euthanasia or “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAID).
“The facility initiated the renewed MAiD discussions with a patient who had declined,” noted Kelsi Sheren in her Substack report, “The Last Ten Days of Brigette ‘GG’ Stegemann.”
Sheren listed the ways that staff at the facility quietly worked toward planning Stegemann’s demise without her family’s knowledge.
“The facility’s staff conducted the private meetings while the advocate was away. The facility’s manager completed the application. The facility’s personnel witnessed the signature,” wrote Sheren.
“At every load bearing point where the law imagines independence, the same institution appears initiator, facilitator, scribe, and witness while the one genuinely independent party, a Power of Attorney of twelve years, was kept, in the family’s phrase, in the dark despite their constant physical presence at the home.”
Writing at the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition’s blog, the family recounted a troubling July 6 meeting with staff:
Our family attended the scheduled MAID meeting expecting to discuss the process with GG’s physician.
Before the physician arrived, an administrator and a registered nurse from the facility entered the room and advised us that the doctor was running behind schedule.
During this conversation, which took place entirely inside GG’s room in her immediate presence, Brigitte asked who had arranged the MAID meeting. No clear answer was ever given. Instead, the family was met with an immediate wall of defensiveness, specifically from the registered nurse. The nurse informed the family that staff had met privately with GG on two occasions during Brigitte’s 10-day vacation to discuss MAID.
Brigitte asked why those discussions had been initiated when GG had previously declined MAID due to her Christian beliefs. She asked point-blank whether these conversations were initiated by GG herself or by the facility staff.
The registered nurse became physically agitated and defensive, wagging her head back and forth as she spoke directly to Brigitte, stating, “I’m advocating for her.”
When Brigitte pushed further to find out exactly who brought up the conversation about MAID, the nurse snapped, “I don’t need to tell you anything.”
Brigitte countered that she had served as GG’s advocate for over a decade, held Power of Attorney, and visited consistently, noting that she had never once encountered this particular nurse during her frequent visits. As the interaction grew increasingly hostile, Brigitte finally stated, “I don’t understand where this attitude is coming from.”
The nurse snapped back, “Well, you have attitude.” At that point, Brigitte told the nurse she needed to leave the room and return only when she was composed. The nurse scoffed and stormed out.
“As family members preparing to discuss the impending death of our grandmother, we found this volatile, unprofessional behaviour from a staff member completely unacceptable, particularly because this aggressive argument was brought directly into GG’s room where she could see and hear the distress it was causing,” wrote the family.
GG’s family described the July 7 meeting with her doctor, referred to as “Dr. K”, as a “deeply alarming farce.” The purpose of the meeting was for Dr. K to determine whether the elderly grandmother possessed the capacity to make an informed decision regarding MAID. Brigitte repeatedly proved unable to answer simple questions about her family.
Despite clear, undeniable indicators of cognitive disorientation and the family’s direct objections, the assessment continued:
Dr. K then explained MAID to GG in specific terms, describing it, to the best of our recollection, as receiving medication, feeling peace, falling asleep, and explicitly promising GG that she “would not lose control of her bowels.”
Our family was deeply unsettled by this framing. For an elderly individual of GG’s demographic background and cognitive capacity, “medication” was a term conceptually linked entirely to healing, care, and relief.
Describing a lethal injection as merely receiving medication—while focusing intensely on her specific, everyday fears of physical indignity—exploited her vulnerability, making it impossible for her to truly grasp that she was consenting to the active termination of her life.
Before any further discussion took place, Dr. K instructed all family members to leave the room. Brigitte requested permission to remain, citing her role as long-time advocate and legal Power of Attorney. Her request was flatly denied, and the critical conversation between Dr. K and GG occurred entirely in private.
When Dr. K emerged from the room, she addressed the family and stated flatly, “I have deemed her capable of making her own decisions.” She then informed us that GG had consented to proceed and that the procedure was scheduled for Friday, July 10, 2026.
On July 8, granddaughter Brigitte received a phone call telling her that the euthanasia procedure was being moved up a full day to July 9, because the physician suddenly had an opening in her schedule.
When Brigitte showed up at the facility and objected to the move, she said that “the MAiD program was being forcefully rammed down the family’s throats, while the items of actual importance to GG were being brushed aside.”
When Brigitte then sat with her grandmother and asked if she was certain she wanted to go through with euthanasia, GG appeared confused and visibly distressed.
The elderly woman responded to her granddaughter with questions: “I’m going to die Friday? They’re going to kill me Friday?”
According to the family, GG “wept for an extended period, repeatedly stating that she had made a mistake. Brigitte comforted her and reassured her that if she had changed her mind, she had the absolute right to tell the medical team on Friday that she did not want to proceed.”
Because of the family’s strong opposition and immediate intervention, the facility backed down from moving the timeline, and the original date of Friday, July 10, at 11:00 a.m. was maintained.
On the morning of the planned procedure, GG’s family brought her out to the facility’s patio so she could enjoy the fresh air and a scoop of strawberry ice cream. But the moment was ruined as an administrator insisted on cutting the outdoor visit short so that an intravenous (IV) line could be inserted.
Shortly afterward, Dr. K arrived and attempted to speak with GG, who never provided a verbal response.
Our family had been strictly assured that GG would be asked for a final, explicit verbal confirmation on the day of the procedure to ensure she still wished to proceed.
When GG remained completely silent and gave no response, Brigitte felt a sudden wave of relief and a big smile came over her face, believing that the procedure would finally be halted because the strict requirement for final consent had not been met.
Tragically, we were left alarmed and horrified when the clinical team completely ignored her silence and carried the procedure forward regardless.
Dr. K reportedly encountered difficulty administering the medications via GG’s IV line, but soon the deed was done.
The room fell completely silent. Our family said our final goodbyes to the matriarch we had protected, loved, and fought for over so many years.
“What happened to Brigitte ‘GG’ Stegemann was a systemic failure driven by clinical arrogance, a total lack of transparency, and a blatant disregard for the safeguards meant to protect vulnerable patients,” declared her family.
“One of our greatest ethical concerns is that GG had explicitly declined MAID, stating it violated her Christian faith. Once a vulnerable patient explicitly declines this path, the facility should never have targeted her for re-evaluation behind closed doors while her primary advocate was away,” they said. “We are deeply alarmed by the absolute lack of transparency and independent oversight regarding the application process.”
“The events of GG’s final morning … have left a lasting trauma on our family.”
****
A pro-life group headed by a former LifeSiteNews staffer publishes a homecare planning guide to help seniors remain independent and safe.