Brigitte Kranendonk says she asked her grandmother a question that should never have been necessary: Did she know she was going to die that Friday?
Her grandmother, 83-year-old Brigitte Stegemann, started crying. “I’ve made a mistake,” she said, according to Kranendonk. She continued to weep for nearly an hour.
Two days later, on July 10, Stegemann died after a doctor administered a lethal injection through Canada’s medical assistance in dying program. Her family is now asking whether she understood what was happening and whether she had freely agreed to it.
The account of Stegemann’s final days comes from her granddaughter. The family’s claims have not been established, but they raise serious questions about consent and the safeguards intended to protect patients.
Stegemann, a devout Christian, had stage 4 stomach cancer and had lived for about 18 months in a long-term care home in Cannifton, Ontario. German was her first language, she was hard of hearing, and her family says she had problems with memory and understanding. Kranendonk had helped care for her for 12 years and held power of attorney for six.
According to Kranendonk, her grandmother had previously rejected assisted death because it conflicted with her faith. But while Kranendonk was away for 10 days, care-home staff arranged an assessment for MAID. She says she learned about the process only after it had begun. Staff had kept her informed about other changes, including her grandmother’s fall and need for a wheelchair, but had not told her that death might be imminent.
When Kranendonk returned, she says, Stegemann was eating, talking, and joking. At a later assessment, the doctor spoke about “medicine” and being “at peace,” but, Kranendonk says, did not clearly explain that the procedure would end her grandmother’s life.
“She doesn’t understand what you’re saying,” Kranendonk objected.
When asked about her family, Stegemann gave answers her granddaughter believed were incorrect. She said she had no living siblings, although two were still alive. Kranendonk says she was then asked to leave. Soon afterward, the doctor told her that Stegemann had been found eligible for MAID.
On Wednesday, July 8, Kranendonk asked to see the documents authorizing the procedure. She was told her grandmother had signed them the day before. Kranendonk says she has never seen the paperwork and does not know who witnessed the signature or how the request was explained. She then asked Stegemann whether she understood that she would die on Friday.
“I’ve made a mistake,” Stegemann replied, according to her granddaughter.
Kranendonk says she told her grandmother she could refuse. The next day, they ate ice cream, talked about old memories, and danced to a German polka. “We had the best day,” she recalled. It was an ordinary, affectionate day—and, in light of what followed, a painful one to remember.
On Friday morning, Kranendonk says, a nurse tried several times to place an intravenous line, and Stegemann began bleeding. When the doctor arrived, she asked whether it was all right to give Stegemann “medicine.”
“My Oma is not moving. She doesn’t open her eyes. She doesn’t nod. She doesn’t say anything,” Kranendonk recalled telling the doctor. The doctor, she says, replied that she would proceed.
Stegemann was pronounced dead minutes later, her hands clasped in prayer.
The care home and the practitioners have not publicly addressed the allegations in detail. They reportedly maintain that Stegemann gave legally valid consent, and no wrongdoing has been established. Belleville police confirmed in September that the death was being investigated. The family has also asked Ontario’s chief coroner to review the case.
Canadian law requires a voluntary and informed request, along with independent assessments. In most cases, the patient must also give express consent immediately before the procedure. A limited exception allows a patient to waive that final consent in writing if particular conditions are met. Even then, a waiver cannot override a patient’s refusal or resistance.
The questions in this case are concrete: What did Stegemann sign, and when? Was she able to understand the document? Was there a valid waiver of final consent? Did she withdraw her agreement or show resistance? The paperwork and investigation should help establish what happened. Kranendonk’s account alone does not prove a crime, but it is reason enough to investigate carefully.
Supporters of assisted death often point to personal autonomy. But a choice is only autonomous if the person understands it, is free to make it, and is the one actually deciding. Silence, an unexplained form, or a doctor’s vague reference to “medicine” cannot stand in for clear consent.
If a patient cannot make her wishes understood, proceeding is not compassion. The central responsibility is to make sure the decision belongs to the vulnerable person whose life is at stake.
Those involved in Stegemann’s death should be able to show that she understood what was proposed and chose it. Until the facts are clear, her family should not be expected to accept that what happened was an act of mercy.
