A Canadian grandmother was euthanized, despite having reaffirmed her opposition to it two months prior. Now, her family is speaking out.

Key Takeaways:

• Brigitte "GG" Stegemann had been living in a care home for two years; her granddaughter, also named Brigitte, had legal power of attorney and was routinely contacted for medical decisions.

• Five months before her death, Stegemann was diagnosed with untreatable Stage IV stomach cancer.

• After three months, Stegemann was asked about Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD), which she said she ardently opposed due to her Christian faith.

• Staff reportedly had discussions with her about MAiD anyway, without her family or any other advocate present. The family was also never given a clear answer about who initiated the MAiD discussions, which was of concern due to Stegemann's diminished mental capacity.

• The euthanasia date was set before MAiD paperwork had even been completed.

• On the day the actual euthanasia was to be committed, the family said the process was rushed, and their final moments with Stegemann were cut short.

The Details:

Kelsi Sheren highlighted the disturbing story of Brigitte "GG" Stegemann, shared by her family in a public Facebook post, calling for accountability and answers in relation to Stegemann's death.

Stegemann was the mother of two children, Fritz and Karin, but her granddaughter, named Brigitte in her honor, had become Stegemann's primary carer and advocate, and held power of attorney. Due to this, she was the primary contact for all medical and personal care decisions.

Stegemann had been living at the E.J. McQuigge Lodge, a long-term care facility, for two years. In the last months of her life, she was diagnosed with Stage IV stomach cancer, which doctors said could not be treated. Her family began to prepare for the end of her life.

The family noted that Brigitte was regularly contacted and kept informed about her grandmother Stegemann's treatment:

Throughout her stay, Brigitte was contacted frequently by the home—often every day or every other day—to make decisions regarding GG's care. Whether the matter involved medications, treatments, appointments, or other aspects of daily living, the staff consistently relied on Brigitte to make or assist with important decisions on GG's behalf.

Three months after the diagnosis, staff approached Stegemann and her family about considering MAiD. Stegemann refused, saying she was a devout Christian and wanted to die naturally.

Shortly afterwards, Brigitte and her husband went out of town for a 10-day vacation; Stegemann's daughter Karin and her husband visited Stegemann regularly during this time.

The family noted that Stegemann was often lethargic; when she was awake, she was not very alert, and was deaf in one ear and could not hear well in the other. This made communication incredibly difficult, and it was believed that Stegemann's natural death was imminent.

They were told a formal MAiD meeting would be held after Brigitte returned, but were not informed that discussions were being held with Stegemann privately, without her family or any advocate present.

The MAiD meeting

On July 6, the family met with Stegemann and her physician for the scheduled MAiD meeting, and were shocked by the difference they saw.

"GG appeared dramatically different from how she had been only days earlier," the family's statement read. "She was sitting upright in bed, talking, smiling, and interacting. When Dave playfully pinched her toes, she laughed and raised her hands as though she wanted to box with him. Seeing such a sudden, dramatic improvement left us confused and raised serious questions about why she had appeared so heavily sedated during the previous several days."

The family then requested Stegemann's Medication Administration Record (MAR) log, and saw no differences in medication dosages, which only furthered their suspicion. They said:

[E]ither the home's paperwork did not accurately reflect what was actually being injected into her system, or the clinical team had actively exploited a brief, completely anomalous window of temporary alertness to rush through a permanent evaluation that entirely misrepresented GG's true, unresponsive everyday baseline.

It was only then that they were informed that staff met with Stegemann privately in the 10-day period Brigitte was gone, and no one would tell the family who initiated the MAiD discussions or why it had been brought up again when she had already expressed her moral opposition to it.

The meeting with the physician was moved to the next day, and the family was told they could not remain with Stegemann for part of it. The part that they were able to witness, however, was disturbing:

Because of GG's severe hearing impairment, Dr. K had to repeat her questions several times, but the barrier was far more than physical hearing. Throughout the assessment, GG repeatedly provided objectively incorrect answers to basic, factual questions about her own life and immediate family.

When asked if she had any siblings, GG responded that she had none. The family immediately corrected the record, explaining that GG was the second-youngest of fourteen children. Dr. K then asked if any of her siblings were still alive, and GG again answered no. Once more, the family had to intervene and correct the information, explaining that some of her siblings were still living and that GG had spoken to one of them just the previous week.

At this point, GG became completely disoriented and distressed. She began to cry, stating, "I forgot about the grandkids," visibly confusing her living siblings with her great-grandkids.

In fact, the family had to step in and correct the vast majority of the answers GG gave during the questioning. Brigitte explicitly objected to the evaluation right then and there, questioning Dr. K directly on how GG could possibly be deemed to have the capacity to consent to death when she could not accurately recount the most basic facts of her own family and was actively breaking down in confusion.

Despite this, the assessment continued, and to the family's horror, Dr. K's description of what would occur was confusing at best due to the use of vague, euphemistic language:

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.

Following this, the family was instructed to leave, including Brigitte, who requested to stay due to her power of attorney. This was denied.

Family left 'shocked and distressed'

Dr. K said Stegemann had consented to MAiD, and her euthanasia was scheduled for July 10, 2026, which left the family "shocked and distressed."

They further discovered that, in what appears to be an illegal action, the MAiD assessment and determination occurred before any application was filled out; after Stegemann's euthanasia date had been set, staff at the facility then filled out the application.

Once again, Brigitte was not informed, despite her power of attorney.

On July 8, the family was informed the euthanasia date had been moved forward one day, and Brigitte immediately went to the facility to find out more information. The euthanasia aspect aside, Brigitte noted that Stegemann's wishes — which included the presence of her family and her pastor at her death — were being ignored.

Brigitte then spoke directly to Stegemann. The family explained:

During the visit that followed, Brigitte sat with her grandmother and asked if she was entirely certain she wanted to go through with this on Friday.

GG appeared confused and visibly distressed. She responded with words to the effect of, "I'm going to die Friday? They're going to kill me Friday?" She 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.

The clinic moved the euthanasia date back to July 10.

That morning, her family came at 9:00 am, took her outside in a wheelchair to enjoy being outside with her family, and gave her strawberry ice cream, her favorite. Within 10 minutes, staff was pressuring the family to bring Stegemann back inside and get the IV inserted to begin her euthanasia, even though it was not scheduled to begin until 11:00 am.

At 10:20 am, Stegemann was taken back to her room, and Brigitte and her husband were asked to assist with handing the staff medical supplies for the IV insertion, which disturbed them, as they opposed the euthanasia. The insertion was then botched, leaving the family horrified when they entered the room to see Stegemann covered in blood.

When Dr. K arrived, Stegemann never gave verbal consent for the euthanasia to proceed. The family shared:

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.

Shortly afterwards, Stegemann was dead.

The family is now speaking out in an effort to get accountability and answers for the many lapses in care, including ignoring her cognitive state, her prior refusal, denying her the presence of an advocate, and committing MAiD despite Stegemann's lack of a final, verbal consent.

The Bottom Line:

Euthanasia has become a leading cause of death in Canada since being legalized in 2016, and legal euthanasia for mental illness is scheduled to take effect in 2027. Euthanasia and assisted suicide now make up five percent (5%) of all deaths in Canada, with over a fifth of applicants citing “isolation or loneliness” as the reason why they wanted to die.

Reports have additionally shown that people have been offered MAiD for poverty, homelessness, and an inability to access disability or mental health services.