Yes, Brigitte's story about GG being killed by euthanasia is true.

Brigitte Stegemann did not answer the competency questions and the assessor declared her competent anyway.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On September 20, the Daily Mail published an article by Imogen Garfinkel titled: Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother was euthanized against her will under Canada's assisted dying system.

A lot of people are stating, online, that the story is not true. I have an issue with the title of the article and the claim that the Daily Mail had an exclusive interview, but I can assure you that the story is true.

On July 22, I spoke to Brigitte Kranendonk and then published the article: My Family's Experience with Medical Assistance in Dying. My article reposted with permission the facebook post that Kranendonk posted on her facebook page.

On July 22, Kelsi Sheren spoke with Brigitte Kranendonk and on July 27 published the article: The Last 10 days of Brigitte (GG) Stegemann. On August 17, Kelsi Sheren followed up with another article: The Family filed. Here's the name. Dr Kate Koester.

Terry O'Neill spoke to Brigitte Kranendonk and on July 29 published the article: National MAiD watchdog needed as Provincial oversight failures mount.

Clearly, the Daily Mail story was not an exclusive.

On July 22, I summed up the story with the following key takeaways.

• Brigitte Stegemann (GG) originally explicitely stated that she didn't want MAiD.
• The medical team had her ask for MAiD when her granddaughter, Brigitte Kranendonk, the legal power of attorney, was on vacation.
• GG was approved even though she was unable to answer the competency questions and she also had serious hearing issues making it hard for her to understand questions.
• The staff filled out the euthanasia forms and witnessesed the signature.

The issues were explained in the original facebook post stating:

This is our family's account of the systemic failures, lack of transparency, and profound procedural violations we witnessed during the final days of our beloved mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother, Brigitte Stegemann, whom we lovingly called "GG."

We are sharing our story because what happened in GG's case was a severe breach of medical ethics, informed consent, and basic human dignity. Decisions of this magnitude demand absolute transparency, strict adherence to legal safeguards, and the meaningful involvement of designated family advocates. In GG’s case, the system failed on every single one of these fronts.

Everything that follows is a truthful account of how the care home and the attending physician systematically bypassed our family, ignored our legal standing, and pushed forward with ending GG's life against her previously stated wishes.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes killing all people. All euthanasia (MAiD) deaths contravene medical ethics and are inhumane in their very nature.

The key issue in law that was contravened in the killing of Brigitte Stegemann was her competency. GG could not answer the questions in the competency test but for some reason the doctor declared her competent anyway.

The original facebook post explained what happened:

What followed was a deeply alarming farce. 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 these clear, undeniable indicators of cognitive disorientation and the family's direct objections, the assessment carried forward anyway.

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.

When reading through this account it is clear that Brigitte Stegemann was not competent to request (MAiD) euthanasia and yet was deemed competent anyway. This contravened the law and medical ethics.

There is another issue from the facebook post, that being how euthanasia was described. The killing doctors intentionally avoid the truth, that is, we will kill you in this manner. GG was told that she would be:

receiving medication, feeling peace, falling asleep, and explicitly promising GG that she "would not lose control of her bowels."

I'm all in also until you tell me that it would kill me.

As stated earlier, Kelsi Sheren also spoke to Brigitte Kranendonk on July 22 and published her article on July 27 about the last 10 days of GG's life. 

Sheren explains the issues in this way:

What the law demands, and what the records must now show.

Strip the anguish out of this account and a set of narrow, documentary questions remains. Each has a paper answer.

Capacity, the Criminal Code requires that a person be capable with respect to decisions about their health at the time of assessment. The family describes a woman with a lifelong, un assessed cognitive impairment, profoundly deaf, freshly emerged from days of unresponsiveness her medication records cannot explain, who failed the factual questions of her own assessment so comprehensively that her family corrected the majority of her answers, and who, the following day, did not understand that “MAiD on Friday” meant she would die. Dr. K’s assessment notes, the MAR log, and the timeline will either withstand that account or they will not.

The request, when was the written request actually signed, who witnessed it, and was the signing before or after the procedure was scheduled? The family says after, completed by the facility’s own manager and witnessed by its staff, in secret. The dated documents will settle it.

Final consent, the code requires that immediately before administering MAiD, the practitioner give the person an opportunity to withdraw and ensure their express consent unless a written waiver of final consent was executed in advance, under the 2021 provision known as Audrey’s Amendment, while the person had capacity. The family was promised express final consent would be required; none was given. That leaves two possibilities and only two. Either the procedure was carried out without the final consent the law demands or a waiver exists that no one ever mentioned to the family, including while assuring them of the very safeguard it would nullify, signed at some point by a woman whose capacity is the central dispute of this case. Produce the waiver. Its date, its witness, and the capacity notes from the day it was signed.

The second assessment. The law requires two independent eligibility assessments. The family’s public account describes one. Who performed the other, when, and in what condition was GG at the time?

Sheren is absolutely correct, the issue of capacity to consent is central to this killing. Sheren also emphasizes the issue of the paperwork, which was also brought up by the original facebook posting and the Daily Mail article.

Sheren explains the issue of final consent. Kelsi is correct when she says that the law was changed in 2021 (Bill C-7) where the law now states that final consent is not necessary so long as the person was capable of consenting at the time of assessment. Sheren explains that the family was told that their grandmother would have the opportunity to say no at the time of the killing, but Brigitte Stegemann did not provide final consent. Sheren states that a waiver of consent is necessary and should exist. There may be no waiver of consent.

Nonetheless, Brigitte Kranendonk witnessed the assessment for capacity and clearly stated that her grandmother (GG) did not answer the capacity questions correctly and was falsely declared competent anyway. This is the primary issue.

Once again, this article concerns the legal parameters not the moral parameters around killing.

The final issue that people are missing when they attack this story is the relationship between Brigitte Kranendonk and her grandmother Brigitte Stegemann.

A very close relationship

The original facebook posting stated:

GG was the mother of two children, Fritz and Karin. For more than twelve years, her granddaughter, Brigitte (who shares her name), devoted herself to GG's care and advocacy. Brigitte held legal Power of Attorney (POA) and served as the primary contact for all medical and personal care decisions.

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.

Brigitte Stegemann was not just a grandmother, nor was it simply a legal relationship as Kranendonk was her Power of Attorney, this was a deep, caring family relationship.

The key take-away.

    1.Two months before her death, the issue of (MAiD) was brought up and Brigitte Stegemann stated:

As a devout Christian, she explicitly expressed that MAID conflicted with her personal beliefs and faith.

    2. The issue of euthanasia resurfaced when Brigitte Kranendonk was on a 10-day vacation.

    3. Brigitte Stegemann could not answer the questions correctly during the capacity assessment but was declared capable of consenting anyway.

    4. Brigitte Stegemann did not provide a final consent before being killed. Was there a waiver of consent?

    5. A final issue was how the euthanasia death by botched. The Daily Mail article states:

The nurse struggled to insert the IV into Stegemann's right arm, and ended up piercing her repeatedly with the needle before attempting her left arm.

Kranendonk remembers in graphic detail the copious amount of blood, which made the whole procedure feel strangely unprofessional.

'She's asking us to hand her things, to flush out the needle. So we're now a part of this. She's asking us to grab things for her, and to hold things for her.

'This nurse is not wearing gloves. There's blood all over her hands, there's blood all over the place,' she says, horrified by the memory.

My problem with the Daily Mail article was the title: Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother was euthanized against her will under Canada's assisted dying system.

The killing was possibly against her will but the real issue was that Brigitte Stegemann answered the questions, in her capacity assessment wrong and was for some reason declared competent anyway.

All euthanasia (MAiD) is killing, or as Gordon Friesen would accurately state - medical homicide. Brigitte Stegemann was approved even though she was likely incompetent to request it and her previous response, while competent, was that it contravened her religious beliefs. Her earlier comments should have been respected.

An 83-year old incompetent grandma was killed by euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On July 22, I published an article titled: My Family's Experience with Medical Assistance in Dying. 

On July 27, Kelsi Sheren published an article titled: The Last 10 days of Brigitte (GG) Stegemann.

On September 20, the Daily Mail published an article by Imogen Garfinkel titled: Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother was euthanized against her will under Canada's assisted dying system.

Garfinkel's article is based Brigitte Stegemann (83), who was killed by euthanasia and whose family are now challenging Canada's euthanasia system that approved and then killed their grandmother. Garfinkel writes:

Two days before her Christian grandmother’s assisted dying procedure in Ontario, Canada, Brigitte Kranendonk sat her down to make sure she knew exactly what was going to happen.

‘I used very frank terms. I said: “Do you know that you’re going to die on Friday?”'

The 83-year-old was in visible disbelief and began crying for 45 minutes. ‘I’ve made a mistake,’ Brigitte Stegemann, known affectionately to her family as ‘GG’ or ‘Oma’, wailed.

‘She was bawling. Inconsolable,’ Kranendonk, a real estate agent who shares the same first name with her late grandmother, tells the Daily Mail.

Brigitte Kranendonk, who was named after her grandmother explained to Garfinkel that even though her grandmother got every question wrong during a cognitive test, she was declared competent for the purpose of being killed. Garfinkel reports:

Yet 48 hours after she wept uncontrollably at the notion of MAiD, Stegemann is said to have died with her hands clasped in prayer, covered in her own blood due to a botched first attempt at connecting the IV, administered by a nurse allegedly not wearing gloves.

Brigitte is searching for answers and change. Garfinkel reports:

Kranendonk is currently in the process of desperately appealing to the Chief Coroner’s Office in Ontario, as well as the Patient Ombudsman and Belleville Police, in a bid to ascertain whether what happened the morning of July 10 at The Pearl care home in Cannifton was legal.

Bereaved and distraught, she claims MAiD practitioners took advantage of her grandmother’s vulnerability to perform the procedure, which she alleges was carried out without express consent.

‘She was a vulnerable human being, and they saw an opportunity,’ Kranendonk says, her rage and sadness visible.

Kranendonk suspects the MAiD practitioners were inappropriately ideologically motivated, and believes the chain of events leading up to the procedure should be investigated.

Kranendonk's is absolutely right about the ideological motivations of the MAiD practitioners. My experience with other families who are dealing with euthanasia decisions or grieving from a euthanasia death is that they speak about how the "MAiD team" convinced their loved one to agree to be killed. They use sales techniques to sell the killing as beautiful and peaceful while saying that the alternative will be a painful and horrific death.

Kranendonk suggests that her grandmother's euthanasia was the first one at “The Pearl, long-term care facility, formally known as EJ Mcquigge Lodge” in Belleville, Ontario and it is suggested that they just didn't know what they were doing.

But this was not the first killing for the euthanasia team. Nonetheless, Kranendonk describes how her grandmothers death was not peaceful and dignified. Garfinkel reports:

The moment of Stegemann's death was anything but peaceful, as she had once wished.

Recalling those nightmarish minutes, a traumatised Kranendonk speaks in the present tense, as if the procedure was still happening in slow motion.

'There was a phenomenal amount of blood,' she says, describing the way that the nurse failed to find the correct vein in the right arm to insert the IV, before switching to the left – but only after having 'poked her about three or four times with the needle'.

'It is all over my Oma's arm, it is all over her nightie, soaking through her pillow, all over the sheets, there is so much blood.

'And throughout all this time, mind you, the nurse is not wearing gloves.'

In case some of the readers are euthanasia lobby activists and think, it was her choice, you need to know that Kranendonk was not just a grandchild. Garfinkel explains:

Prior to Stegemann’s death that summer, Kranendonk had been her caregiver for 12 years, and her medical power of attorney for the past six.

A year and a half before her death, the family made the decision to house Stegemann in The Pearl as her physical and cognitive health began to deteriorate.

In February, she was diagnosed with stage 4 stomach cancer. But doctors were not certain about whether the diagnosis meant she had six months to live, or as much time as two years.

For the past decade, Kranendonk had been carefully monitoring what her grandmother ate to keep her healthy, including limiting her sugar intake.

Following the cancer diagnosis, she changed tack and allowed her to eat whatever she craved, deciding she just wanted her grandmother to feel as ‘joyful’ as possible in her final stage of life.

Kranendonk had cared for her grandmother for 12 years and was her power of attorney for her for 6 years. Also, Kranendonk explains that her grandmother had previously said no to MAiD based on: 

her religiosity, and the notion of displeasing God, was a large factor in why her German-born grandmother instinctively opposed assisted dying.

It wasn't until Kranendonk, went on a 10-day road trip that everything changed. Garfinkel reports:

Everything seemed normal. She picked up numerous phone calls, and the doctors didn't discuss a dramatic decline in Stegemann’s health – only that she had fallen over and would need a wheelchair.

But towards the end of the trip, on July 3, Kranendonk received a different kind of call. It was from the home, saying they were going to book a MAiD assessment for her grandmother.

When she returned she learned that her grandmother had already had her first euthanasia assessment. When she asked a nurse who had introduced the topic of euthanasia the nurse responded:

‘The nurse became very abrasive, very defensive,' Kranendonk recalls. 'She was like, "Well, I’m just trying to advocate for her. I’m just trying to do what’s right for her."'

Kranendonk felt that the nurse was pushing death. Garfinkel reported her as stating:

'I truly believe that one nurse really saw us as an obstacle,' she says. 'We were getting in the way of her doing MAiD on my grandmother. I think she really, truly believes that MAiD is the best for people, and shame on me for trying to stop that.'

Selling death.

The law requires that a person who asks to die must clearly request, be informed and be competent. Kranendonk explains how none of this was true:

Kranendonk made sure she was in the room for the second MAiD assessment, and it was there where she noticed the doctor speak in ‘really loose terms, never using the words death or dying’.

‘She explains MAiD to my grandmother by saying: “We’re going to give you medicine, you’re going to feel at peace. And I just want you to know that you won’t have a bowel movement.”'

‘She’s saying it in these strange terms, that aren’t literal,’ Kranendonk says, adding: ‘My Oma’s just kind of nodding. Her first language is not English, she is 83-years old and severely hearing-impaired.’

Kranendonk looked at the doctor, and said: 'She doesn’t understand what you’re saying.'

That’s when the doctor allegedly turned to the grandmother, and offered: ‘We’re going to make sure you won’t have any more pain.’

During the cognitive assessment, which she also sat in on, Kranendonk claims that the questions were curiously designed, in that the doctor couldn’t immediately verify the answers.

As opposed to questions such as who the prime minister was, or that day's date, the grandmother was asked personal questions, like how many siblings she had.

‘But none of that is in her records. They would not know if the information was correct, or not,’ Kranendonk says.

Even so, Stegemann got the answers wrong.

She said she had no siblings, despite having 13.

The doctor asked how many were still alive, and Stegemann answered, saying none.

But two are still alive, and the grandmother had seen one only a month and a half before.

‘So we're going through this assessment. None of the answers could be proven, unless I was there. 

Kranendonk was then asked to leave the room, during the assessment. She was sure that her grandmother had failed the cognitive test

But four minutes after the cognitive test was complete, the doctor announced that Stegemann was 'deemed fit for MAiD, and we're going to proceed'.

Kranendonk was assured that her mother could change her mind at any time.

Pushing death. Garfinkel reports:

On Wednesday, Kranendonk woke up after barely sleeping and prepared to visit her grandmother.

But before she had a chance to enter the home, she got a call from the nurse, who said they planned to fast-track her grandmother's death to Thursday – simply because the doctor had an early opening.

'I was like: "I'm not talking about this right now, I'm on my way to visit my Oma."'

The nurse replied: 'Oh, well, I already spoke to your Oma, and she agreed.'

But Thursday wouldn't have allowed enough time for Stegemann's pastor to arrive, or her son – depriving her of her dying wishes to be surrounded by her loved ones and prayer.

Kranendonk said Thursday wasn't an option, so Friday was kept as the death date.

Stegemann was not imminently dying, so the only reason to fast-track the death date was to get it done before she changed her mind.

Kranendonk then went to the "care" home and demanded the euthanasia paperwork, but no paperwork was shared with her. She doesn't know if there was a valid signature or who the witnesses were.

She then spoke to her grandmother. Garfinkel explains:

Following the altercation with the manager, Kranendonk confronted her grandmother and explained what would be happening on Friday in vivid terms.

The conversation caused her to breakdown in tears and admit that she had made a mistake. 'I just kept saying there's no mistake, there's no mistake. You don't have to do this.

'The doctors are coming on Friday, and you just say no,' Kranendonk recalls pleading.

But it got to a point where Kranendonk didn't want to 'keep fighting MAiD, and lose sight of who I'm fighting for'.

Her grandmother was unwell, and confused, so she made the decision to just try and experience all the precious quality time she could have with Stegemann – while she still had a chance.

And crucially, she trusted the nurses to not take advantage of the ailing woman. 

Kranendonk said that both her and her grandmother were vulnerable and she decided to make the best of the situation. Garfinkel reports:

On Thursday, the pair danced together to traditional German Polka music and ate ice-cream in her room.

'We had the best day,' Kranendonk recalls, tearfully. 'I felt great leaving on Thursday.'

But she went home utterly confused. On the one hand, she was elated she had such a fantastic day with her grandmother.

But on the other hand, she couldn't bear the possibility of what might happen the next day.

'I was so split. Part of me was like, maybe it's not going to happen. And then there was this underlying feeling of, oh God, what if it does?'

Kranendonk has examined the reality and stated:

In hindsight, she felt like she was in an unworkable situation. She at once wanted the best for her grandmother and wanted to respect her autonomy, but was terribly concerned that she had never once heard her say, out loud and clearly: 'I want MAiD.'

'All I saw was her not understanding the process,' Kranendonk recalls.

Friday July 10. The day of death. Garfinkel reports

When Friday, July 10 arrived, everything felt rushed again. The family took Stegemann out into the residential home's garden to share strawberry ice-cream – her favourite – and the pastor arrived, who started a round of prayers.

'She's very confused at this point,' Kranendonk remembers.

At 9.30am – after 10 minutes of being outside – the MAiD nurse asked for the family to return indoors, despite the fact that they were told the doctor would not arrive until 11am.

The nurse said that she needed time to get the IV started, and Kranendonk remembers telling her forcefully that they were not finished having time together as a family.

'Well, how long do you need?' she claims the nurse said, rather dismissively, in response.

Once back inside the home, the nurse started the IV, Kranendonk alleges. According to Kranendonk, the doctor hadn't even arrived, and her grandmother was not asked if she gave consent for the procedure to begin.

The nurse struggled to insert the IV into Stegemann's right arm, and ended up piercing her repeatedly with the needle before attempting her left arm.

Kranendonk remembers in graphic detail the copious amount of blood, which made the whole procedure feel strangely unprofessional.

'She's asking us to hand her things, to flush out the needle. So we're now a part of this. She's asking us to grab things for her, and to hold things for her.

'This nurse is not wearing gloves. There's blood all over her hands, there's blood all over the place,' she says, horrified by the memory.

The doctor then entered the room and told Stegemann she was there to give her 'medicine', and asked if that was okay with her.

'My Oma is not moving. She doesn't open her eyes. She doesn't nod. She doesn't say anything, and the doctor just said: "Okay, well, I'm going to proceed."'

Within 10 minutes, Stegemann was pronounced dead. Due to how unresponsive she was, Kranendonk doesn't know if her grandmother died shortly before the MAiD, because of the MAiD, or whether she was just in deep prayer.

She says that no heartbeat was taken, before or after the procedure.

Did Brigitte Stegemann know what MAiD actually was? Kranendonk told Garinkel: 

'What was concerning, though, is that that morning, I was crying. My grandmother looked at me and said, "If you don't stop crying, I'm not going to sleep tonight." She said that to me on Friday morning.'

The article finishes with Kranendonk outlining some of the concerns with her grandmother's death:

She has subsequently learn't that nurses are strictly prohibited from pressuring a patient to pursue MAiD, and that all the correct paperwork for MAiD to take place must be submitted before a death date can be determined.

Stegemann's paperwork was completed after her death, her granddaughter claims.

'She did not consent the morning of the procedure,' Kranendonk says, steadfast in her conclusion that her grandmother was euthanised against her will.

She has consistently asked The Pearl to hand over her grandmother's medical records, but all of her requests have been refused, she says.

She regrets not applying for a legal injunction to prevent the MAiD from occurring, but she also didn't realise she had the right to ask for one at the time.

'I was flying blind,' she says. And crucially, her grandmother still needed medical attention in those final weeks.

'We live in Canada, where medical care is not always easy to get. She still needed medical care. I could not just scoop her up and bring her home,' she says.

She trusted the government, and the medical establishment, not to take advantage of her grandmother. In the months since July, that trust has completely shattered.

The article ends with Garinkel reporting that A spokesman for Belleville Police told the Daily Mail: 'This incident is currently open and under investigation with our Criminal Investigations Division. We are unable to provide any additional information at this time.'

If this was the only concerning story about Canada's euthanasia regime, then it would be tragic and worth investigating, but nonetheless a reality. But this is one of a massive number of concerning euthanasia stories in Canada and Canada's killing machine only continues to grow and speed up.

MAiD (euthanasia) should never be legal. To give medical professionals the right in law to kill their patients is lethal and not safe. One of the strongest messages from Kranendonk's experience is how the "MAiD team" appeared to be ideologically motivated.

Canada now has a small group of doctors and nurse practitioners who do a lot of killing. That small group has drank the kool-aid and are convinced that euthanasia has made them "angels of mercy."

The truth is that many of these medical professionals have become medical serial killers and the legalization of euthanasia has MAiD it possible.

Sadly, death cannot be reversed. Brigitte Stegemann cannot be brought back. Her real intentions and understanding will never be known and her death is one of many horrific Canadian euthanasia deaths.

Bill C-218 will be debated on September 23. Help prevent euthanasia for mental illness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bill C-218, the bill to prevent euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria is being debated on September 23 and will go to a vote on October 7.

In March 2021, the Canada's parliament expanded the euthanasia law by passing Bill C-7. One of the expansions in the law  permitted euthanasia for a mental illness alone. but, at that time, the government declared a two-year moratorium to provide time to prepare for the change.

The government has now delayed the implementation of euthanasia for mental illness, as a sole criteria, three times with implementation currently approved for March 17, 2027.

On June 20, 2025, Tamara Jansen (MP - Cloverdale - Langley City) introduced private members Bill C-218 to prevent euthanasia (MAiD) for mental illness as the sole criteria. 

Bill C-218 excludes mental illness from being defined as a "grievous and irremediable medical condition" for the purposes of MAiD. Bill C-218, if passed will prevent MAID for mental illness alone.

Bill C-218 had it's first hour of debate on December 5, 2025. 

It's second hour of debate is on Wednesday, September 23, 2026 and the vote is scheduled for Wednesday October 7, 2026.

There are several ways that you can help Bill C-218 be passed:

1. Sign the petition in support of Bill C-218 (Link).
2. Share your story about living with mental illness, as Andrew Lawton (MP) did with his message: I got better. Support Bill C-218 prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
3. Send your personal stories about living with mental illness to info@epcc.ca.
4. Contact your Member of Parliament (MP) and share your story and your support for Bill C-218. Contact your Member of Parliament at: (Member of Parliament List).
5. It is easier to call your Member of Parliament. The phone number is part of the MP contact information. (Member of Parliament List).
6. Refer to the information in the Bill C-218 handout for Members of Parliament (Link).

Remember. The majority of Canadians do not support MAiD for mental illness. 

Mario Canseco, the President of Research Co, was published by Business Intelligence for BC on October 30 with new polling indicating that the majority of Canadians do not support (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness. Conseco reported that:

At this point, only an adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can seek medical assistance in dying in Canada. An expansion that would cover mental illness is expected to come into place in March 2027. Just over two in five Canadians (42 per cent, down one point) believe mental illness is a good reason for a person to request medical assistance in dying.

To pass, Bill C-218 needs Member of Parliament from all political parties to support it. Keys to speaking to your Member of Parliament:

• Only comment on MAiD for mental illness alone. Bill C-218 only deals with that issue. There are many concerns, but mixing issues weakens your position.
• Contact your Member of Parliament, even if you know his/her position on MAiD.
• Ask others, including groups that you belong to, to contact the Member of Parliament.

More information on Bill C-218.

• Bill C-218 introduced to prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Support Bill C-218. No to MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Supporting Bill C-218 - I am so thankful to be alive (Link). 
• I got better. Support Bill C-218 prevent MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• My story: No to MAiD for Mental Illness (Link). 
• Patti's story. Support Bill C-218. (Link).
• The majority of Canadians do not support MAiD (euthanasia) for mental illness (Link).

Two-year old killed by euthanasia in the Netherlands.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The NL Times reported on September 9 that the first euthanasia death in the Netherlands of a child under the age of 12 was done at the end of 2025. The child was around 2 years old.

The Netherlands has allowed infant euthanasia (under the age of 1) for many years based on the Groningen Protocol. This case is different because the child was not a newborn

The recent article is a follow-up report to an article that was published in June, 2026 confirming that the first child euthanasia death happened.

The NL Times report stated that:

This child was born very prematurely, at only 26 weeks of gestation. It quickly became apparent that the child had suffered severe brain damage, resulting in severe cerebral palsy and a visual impairment. This was compounded by frequent and severe epileptic seizures, which were largely unresponsive to medication. This left the child restless and unable to sleep for long periods. They also had mucus in their lungs, which made breathing and swallowing very difficult.

The report justifies the killing based on the child being born prematurely and having significant disabilities. But the child had lived approximately 2-years-old, meaning, that the killing was actually based on the disabilities since the child had survived two years since birth.

This case reminds me of the first child euthanasia death that was on July 24, 1939. The Nazi euthanasia program was launched in 1939 after Adolf Hitler received a letter from Richard Kretschmar, the father of an infant (referred to as "Case K" or the 'Knauer child'). Historians now know that the child was Gerhard Herbert Kretschmar.

The letter stated that Gerhard was born on February 20, 1939, that he was blind, had one leg and part of one arm was missing and was described as "an idiot". Hitler sent Dr Karl Brant to see the child in a hospital in Leipzig. Brant testified at the Nurembourg trial that he had been instructed that if the father's letter was correct that the physicians at the hospital would be told that euthanasia could be carried out - in Hitler's name. Gerhard was euthanized on July 24, 1939.

History indicates that the German T4 euthanasia program, that followed, began with parental request for euthanasia and in the end resulted in the deaths of, at least, 250,000 to 275,000 people with disabilities.

Further to that, the technique in killing large numbers of people by gas was first developed in the psychiatric hospitals for the euthanasia program and later installed in the death camps for killing millions of people. According to the Holocaust Museum, T-4 staff were redeployed to the death camps. 

Canada is debating Child euthanasia.

A report by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD) was tabled in the House of Commons on February 15, 2023 calling for a drastic expansion of euthanasia (MAiD) in Canada. Among other recommendations, the report recommends that euthanasia be expanded to include children "mature minors."

While presenting to the AMAD Committee on September 7, 2022 Dr Louis Roy from the Québec College of Physicians urged Canada's Federal government to adopt a protocol to permit infant euthanasia. Dr Roy suggested that this should only be allowed in rare circumstances, such as a newborn who is unlikely to survive.

Infant euthanasia opens the door to a new justification for killing since the baby lacks competence and is not autonomously capable of choosing to be killed. Infant euthanasia is a form of eugenics whereby protocols will determine which lives are worth living.

While the AMAD committee didn't accept the recommendation from the Québec College of Physicians researchers at Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto have also considered the issue. 

Guidelines for child euthanasia. 

Article: Sick Kids Hospital Toronto will euthanize children with or without parental consent (Link). 

A report from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto (October 2018) stated that they are ready to do euthanasia on children but their policy states that a child should be able to die by euthanasia without the consent or knowledge of the parents. 

An article by Sharon Kirkey published by Sun Media, published on October 9, 2018; reported that "ethicists" at the Children's Hospital believe that there is no difference between killing someone and letting them die. Kirkey reported:

The working group said it wasn’t convinced that there is a meaningful difference for the patient “between being consensually assisted in dying (in the case of MAID) and being consensually allowed to die (in the case of refusing life-sustaining interventions).” 

Sick Children's hospital draft policy applied the same "ethics" for mature minors making medical decisions as making death decisions. Canadian provinces allow mature minors to make decisions about their own care, including withdrawing or withholding life support. In Ontario a minor can provide consent for treatment or withdrawal of treatment if they understand the “reasonably foreseeable consequences” of their decision. The Sick Kids' hospital policy stated that they encourage minors to involve their families in medical decisions.

Kirkey explained that the Hospitals for Sick Children draft policy would permit children to decide to be killed by euthanasia without the consent of the parents:

The draft policy argues the same rules should apply to MAID since there is no meaningful ethical or practical distinction from the patient’s perspective between assisted dying and other procedures that result in the end of a life, such as palliative sedation (where people sleep until they die) or withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatments. 

The draft policy by Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children set out what can be expected if Canada permits euthanasia for children (mature minors).

The child euthanasia issue is being promoted by the death lobby and medical "ethicists." The euthanasia death of a two-year old in the Netherlands is a very serious issue and has international overtones. 

We oppose killing people, we support better end-of-life care.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

We are incredibly thankful with the defeat of the assisted suicide bills in the UK and Scotland this year and the incredible victory in Slovenia in November 2025.

These victories are proof that there is not overwhelming support for the concepts surrounding medical homicide (euthanasia and assisted suicide). Nonetheless these victories also uncover significant cultural challenges, especially in the UK.

One of the major reasons that these assisted suicide bills were defeated was that the language of these bills lacked effective definition and adequate protections for people at a vulnerable time of their life. Would a bill with clear language and proper oversight have passed?

The problems with the language and definitions within the UK assisted suicide bills are the same problems that we have experienced in Canada with the lack of oversight and expansions of medical homicide based on undefined language in the law.

During the assisted suicide debates in the UK and Scotland, those who opposed and supported the assisted suicide bills recognized that it was necessary to improve end-of-life care. 

We agree. It is unacceptable that people do not get the care that they need as they approach the end of their life.

This is a significant challenge for the UK National Health Service (NHS) as the cost of care is significant and yet necessary. I hope that the UK and Scottish governments don't simply talk in platitudes but rather employ action.

We support caring for people and we oppose killing people.

There are many reasons to oppose medical homicide but the primary reason is the effect on the culture and every individual when the government gives medical professionals, or some other group (Swiss assisted suicide clinics) the right in law to be directly involved with killing people.

• Effective legislative language will not protect people once they are killed.
• Excellent end-of-life care will not safeguard people once they are killed.

Further to that, the incentive to kill is great.

• Dead people don't need medical treatment or pain control.
• Dead people don't collect retirement pensions.
• Dead people don't collect disability benefits.

The commitment to opposing medical homicide must come first and then jurisdictions must actually provide better end-of-life care, equality for people with disabilities, and support for people with chronic conditions.

This is similar to suicide prevention campaigns. A commitment to suicide prevention requires the resources to help people at their lowest point, but the commitment starts with recognizing that every suicide is tragic.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition celebrates the victories in the jurisdictions that have rejected medical homicide as we oppose killing people. We challenge these jurisdictions to improve end-of-life care, equality for people with disabilities and the care of people living with chronic and often painful conditions.

We oppose killing people, and we can, and must provide better care.

Great news: British parliament defeats assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have great news.

The British Parliament defeated the Edwards assisted suicide bill today (September 11) by a vote of 286 to 270. This is a great reason to celebrate.

We especially congratulate our friends at the Care Not Killing Alliance who have worked for so long to defeat this bill and previous bills. 

EPC letter sent to members of the British parliament (Link).

Some background

The Edwards assisted suicide bill was introduced on June 17, 2026 and was nearly identical to the Leadbeater bill that passed in the British parliament on November 29, 2024 by a vote of 330 to 275 at second reading and 313 to 291 in the final vote.

The Leadbeater assisted suicide bill was fatally flawed and timed-out in the British House of Lords earlier this year.

What changed between November 29, 2024 and September 11, 2026?

The Leadbeater bill passed in the House of Commons but stalled in the House of Lords. During the House of Lords debate multiple flaws and concerns with the bill were uncovered. Even though the Leadbeater bill was flawed, Edwards introduced a nearly identical bill in order to invoke the Parliaments Act which states that if two nearly identical bills are passed in the House of Commons in two consecutive parliaments then the bill is not required to be approved by the House of Lords.

Edwards was hoping to prevent the bill from having to be debated in the House of Lords.

Keir Starmer - Andy Burnham

Another change was that Keir Starmer was the British Prime Minister during the Leadbeater assisted suicide bill debate. Starmer was a long-time promoter of assisted suicide.

Due to his drop in popularity, Starmer resigned as Prime Minister and Andy Burnham became the new Prime Minister.

Unlike Starmer, Burnham is not a strong supporter of assisted suicide. In late July Burnham, while speaking with reporters after a speech at a Jewish Care facility about social care reform commented on the upcoming assisted suicide debate. Burnham stated at (11:34):

"I take the view that the debate, and I don't say that there shouldn't be a debate at some point about those issues, personally I think that there is something that needs to happen first and that's the fixing of the funding of palliative care and social care. 

I think it is very challenging to introduce that wider debate in a context of people not receiving that care and having the peace of mind about that care.”

Burnham did not say that he opposed assisted suicide but he did say that improvements to end-of-life care should come first, before Britain considers assisted suicide.

Burnham later stated that members of the governing Labour party were not going to be pressured to vote for the assisted suicide bill.

Finally, stories about Canada's euthanasia law continue to circulate in Britain. The assisted suicide lobby has tried to "undo" the damage from Canada's euthanasia reality but the multitude of stories make it impossible to negate the truth, that legalizing assisted suicide, even a law that is "tighter" than the Canadian law, will result in expansion over time.

In March 2026, Scotland's parliament rejected the McArthur assisted suicide bill by a vote of 69 to 57 and today, the British parliament rejected the Edwards assisted suicide bill by a vote of 286 to 270.

The battle is not over in Britain, but the victories are worth celebrating.

Letter to the British Parliament. Vote No to the assisted dying bill.

The Canadian experience proves that you should not legalize assisted dying.

By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Dr Paul Saba, Co-Founder of Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia and a Québec family physician.

Many people believe that the Edwards assisted dying bill will legalize a "limited" assisted dying law. In reality, the bill lacks effective definition to limit its application. Even so, the Canadian experience with legalizing assisted dying proves that the law will expand based on a lack of definition in the language of the law and the reality that, once legalized, restrictions in the law will be challenged based on equality. 

Canada’s original law (Bill C-14) appeared designed to limit assisted dying to people who were terminally ill by including the restriction that a person’s natural death must be reasonably foreseeable, a phrase that was never defined in the law. 

Even under the original law, which was more restrictive than Canada’s current law, Dr Paul Saba had a patient who wanted to die by euthanasia, but his patient had a wrong diagnosis. Dr Saba explains:

Dr Paul Saba

Let me share a personal experience. Eight years ago, one of my patients, Jim (a pseudonym), came to see me for a cough, thinking he had a cold. I ordered a Chest X-Ray. According to the radiologist’s report, Jim appeared to have lung cancer. I sat down with Jim and told him, “We need to do a CT scan immediately. You need to see a specialist. We need to do a bronchoscopy…”

Jim replied, “Dr Saba, I know you’re against assisted suicide, but you know what? I don’t necessarily agree with you.” I replied, "No, no. You need to go through all the steps of the diagnostic process, because this is only a preliminary diagnosis. Even if it is lung cancer, it’s a disease that can be treated today. There are new treatments available. It might not even be lung cancer.”

I spoke with the radiologist who had performed the lung CT scan; he told me, “We don’t know exactly what it is. It looks like lung cancer, but it could be lymphoma, which would be highly treatable. ”

Jim is an intelligent, well-informed man, an engineer, who thought he had a cold, only to be told he might have cancer. He could have resigned himself to an assisted death before even knowing 

what it was, since Canadian law allows a person to refuse all the testing necessary to confirm the diagnosis. He could have lost hope when the situation was still full of hope.

The power to move people to give up is one of the dangerous and misleading aspects of assisted dying. However, Jim is alive today because I was able to get his attention and persuade him that the situation was hopeful and that he should get more tests and undergo treatment. Today, eight years after diagnosis, investigations and treatment, he is happy to be alive with no further evidence of disease. 

Jim was finally diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which is a condition that is highly curable with targeted medical treatment.

Misdiagnosis is not uncommon. DP Medical reported in February 2025 that a 2023 study by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) estimated that misdiagnoses affect around one in 18 patients in primary and secondary care. The same study found that misdiagnosed cancers, strokes, and heart attacks were among the most serious cases, often leading to life-altering consequences or death.

Misdiagnosis is a strong reason to oppose assisted dying laws, but the biggest reason to oppose the Edwards bill is what it actually legalizes and what legalization will lead to over time.

Assisted dying is an act of killing a person, usually upon request, by prescribing a combination of lethal poison drugs to cause death. This is not a minor issue, as it requires medical professionals to be directly involved with the act of killing their patients.

Another issue is how these laws evolve over time. The Canadian experience shows how a law can move from assisted dying for the terminally ill, to assisted dying for the chronically ill to assisted dying for people with chronic mental illness as their sole criteria, to assisted dying by advanced request and to considerations of assisted dying for mature minors.

A recent parliamentary committee stated that the Canadian government should not extend assisted dying to people with chronic mental illnesses as their sole criteria. Dying with Dignity, an assisted dying lobby group, responded to the committee by launching a court case arguing that Canadians with mental illness as their sole criteria had a right to an assisted death.

Assisted dying is not what people think it is. It is about creating an avenue to kill people and legalizing assisted dying leads to extensions over time based on discrimination, as the restrictions in the law will be deemed to deny people equality under the law. 

Vote NO on the Edwards assisted dying bill while being committed to improving the care that everyone needs and deserves. 

Alex Schadenberg - Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Paul Saba - Co-Founder of the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia

Judge refuses to block Illinois assisted suicide law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

A federal judge, on September 10, denied the request from disability rights advocates’ to block the Illinois assisted suicide law from going into effect on September 12.

Jeremy Gorner reported for the Chicago Tribune on September 10 that:

The ruling came in a federal lawsuit filed earlier this year by two disabled patients, a doctor and several disability and patients’ rights organizations. They allege the state’s End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which bars discrimination against people with disabilities; the Affordable Care Act, which regulates healthcare costs; and the plaintiffs’ equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But in his 25-page decision, U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp rejected at least one of the plaintiffs’ arguments calling for a preliminary injunction to put the law on hold, disagreeing that doctors “will start inviting disabled patients to consider medical aid in dying” once the law takes effect.

On December 12, 2025 Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed assisted suicide bill SB 9 into law. The Illinois assisted suicide law is scheduled to go into effect later this week, on September 12, 2026.

We reported on September 9 that Hannah Meisel reported for Capital News Illinois on September 8 that disability rights organizations, on September 5, petitioned a federal judge to block the implementation of the Illinois assisted suicide law based on how the law contravenes the Americans with Disabilities Act, and is discriminatory against disabled people, who are more susceptible to physician bias and therefore coercion to end their life.

Gorner also reported that Tharp questioned the standing of the plaintiffs in the case.

As referenced in Tharp’s decision, one of the plaintiffs — a quadriplegic woman named Ebony Payne who is paralyzed from the neck down and has repeatedly been in serious life-threatening situations in hospitals — contended that for disabled people the law “removes the legal and ethical obligation of doctors” to act solely as healers by allowing them to respond to requests about procedures related to medical aid in dying. But the judge argued the plaintiff has not shown that she is a “qualified patient” under the law. 

The judge also noted Payne did not explain “why she is necessarily harmed” by the law if she does not seek a medical-aid-in-dying method “or the physician is in any event unwilling to provide such assistance.”

The Illinois assisted suicide law will go into effect on September 12. Tharp gave the plaintiffs 30 days to appeal the decision.

Assisted suicide laws give medical professionals the right in law to prescribe lethal poison for the purpose of suicide. The Illinois assisted suicide law is designed to make it impossible to prosecute a medical professional who assists a suicide, even in the most egregious cases.

Illinois Judge considers blocking assisted suicide law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On December 12, 2025 we reported that Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed assisted suicide bill SB 9 into law. The Illinois assisted suicide law is scheduled to go into effect later this week, on September 12, 2026.

Hannah Meisel reported for Capital News Illinois on September 8 that disability rights organizations, on September 5, petitioned a federal judge to block the implementation of the Illinois assisted suicide law based on how the law contravenes the Americans with Disabilities Act, and is discriminatory against disabled people, who are more susceptible to physician bias and therefore coercion to end their lives.

Miesel reported that:

Thomas Geoghegan, who represents the disability rights groups, physician and disabled Illinoisans who brought the case, told U.S. District Judge John Tharp that the law upends the millennia-old tradition of the Hippocratic oath, a pledge doctors make to “first do no harm.” As a result, Geoghegan argued, EOLA will result in the “severe impairment” of the relationship a patient with disabilities has with his or her physician.

Miesel further reported that Geoghegan argued that:

“It’s our view, ultimately, this is authorizing a different standard of care,” he said.

Disability rights advocates fiercely opposed the two-year effort to pass the law, warning that physician bias in perceived quality of life may make doctors more inclined to encourage life-ending treatment over other options for people with disabilities.

Judge Sharp must decide if the Illinois assisted suicide law contravenes the Americans with Disabilities Act and is therefore discriminatory towards people with disabilities. Sharp said that he would make a decision before September 12.

On August 24, 2026 Molly Sweeney reported for WCIA news that Illinois agreed to a temporary order pausing assisted suicide law for certain hospitals and doctors.

On September 4, Chicago Archbishop Cardinal Blase Cupich and two orders of Catholic nuns launched a lawsuit seeking to block the Illinois assisted suicide law that is scheduled to to into effect on September 12, arguing that the law violates constitutional protections for free speech and religious freedom.