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.

Sellling euthanasia (MAiD) at the bedside.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Do not ask me about euthanasia. I am not interested.

I was contacted by a woman who called us on behalf of her elderly Aunt who was receiving treatment in a hospital in London Ontario.

The Aunt wanted to know if there was anything that could be done to stop the MAiD team from asking her if she wanted MAiD.

The woman told me that her Aunt was asked, if she wanted euthanasia twice, in a pretty persuasive manner, and she said NO.

The woman told me that her Aunt was very upset because the person in the bed next to her was sold euthanasia at the bedside. Her Aunt told her that the MAiD team sold euthanasia as a beautiful death and made the person in the bed next to her, who was not asking for euthanasia, fear that she would otherwise have a terrible death.

The Aunt was concerned that the MAiD team might do the same to her, when she was going through a difficult time.

I told the woman to order the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care for her Aunt.

The clear language in the EPC Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care is designed to protect her life.

EPC sells the Life Protecting Power of Attorney for Personal Care for $10 + taxes. Order the Life Protecting Power of Attorney (Order Link) or call EPC at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca

I asked if they wanted our new Do not ask me about euthanasia. I am not interested card.  

 

EPC will send this card with any donation amount (Donation Link) or by emailing us at info@epcc.ca.

EPC will also send you the Do Not Kill Me. I oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide card upon request. Just email us at: info@epcc.ca.

MAiD teams are selling euthanasia at the bedside. This is a form of coercion.

Euthanasia is medical homicide.

Texas woman arrested for assisting her ex-husband's suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Caitlin McCormack reported for the New York Post on February 18 that Sarah Regmund was arrested in the suicide death of her ex-husband Joseph Cheffo. The report indicated that Regmund assisted the suicide of Cheffo by following and participating in how-to instructions from the Final Exit Network.

The Final Exit Network (FEN) provides information, advice and sometimes trained people to assist a suicide.

According to McCormack:

Joseph Cheffo was found dead in his home in Odessa, Texas on Feb. 13. Even though assisted suicide is illegal in the Lone Star State, his ex-wife and primary caretaker, Sarah Regmund, allegedly helped suffocate him with how-to instructions from the Final Exit Network, the Odessa American reported.

I will not describe the assisted suicide death, but McCormack reported:

During an interview with police, Regmund explained that she had been in touch with the Final Exit Network, whose founder authored the book found near Cheffo’s bed. She claimed that the nonprofit’s representatives showed Cheffo how to kill himself the same day he died, according to the Odessa American.

McCormack stated that it was not clear whether or not FEN members were present at the death. Regmund admitted to following the FEN instructions, to setting up the suicide, and waiting two hours before reporting the death.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will follow this case.

FEN have been involved in many known assisted suicide deaths.

In 2015, the Final Exit Network or FEN was found guilty, by a jury, of assisted suicide in the suicide of Doreen Dunn (57) in 2007, who was depressed but not terminally ill. The group was sentenced on August 24, 2015. FEN appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court to no avail. They argued the Minnesota assisted suicide statute violated the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution. 

After exhausting their appeals of the 2015 jury verdict, FEN filed a federal lawsuit in the Minnesota District Court in 2018 seeking to have the Minnesota assisted suicide law ruled unconstitutional on free speech grounds. The District Court dismissed the case in 2019 because it was simply a repeat of the state appellate case they had lost. Once a decision is final, you don’t get “overs” under the legal doctrine of collateral estoppel.

In May 2021 FEN filed a federal lawsuit with the Minnesota District Court seeking to invalidate the assisted suicide statute on free speech grounds. The legal arguments were the same as those in the 2018 suit that was dismissed, but the facts are different. The case appears to have died in 2023.

John Celmer

FEN has been prosecuted in several assisted suicide deaths. In Georgia, FEN assisted the suicide of John Celmer, who was depressed after recovering from cancer. Susan Celmer, John's widow, testified against the Final Exit Network.

FEN assists the suicide of people at the most vulnerable time of their life. Larry Egbert, the former medical director for the Final Exit Network, lost his medical license in Maryland for assisting suicides.

Did Gavin Newsom Witness His Mother’s Murder?

This article was published by National Review online on February 5, 2026.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

California Governor Gavin Newsom is clearly running for president and — surprise, surprise — has a new memoir coming out. In an interview about the book, he recounted attending his mother’s hastened death. From the Washington Post story:

It was the spring of 2002 when Gavin Newsom’s mother, Tessa, dying of cancer, stunned him with a voicemail. If he wanted to see her again, she told him, it would need to be before the following Thursday, when she planned to end her life.

Newsom, then a 34-year-old San Francisco supervisor, did not try to dissuade her, he recounted in an interview with The Washington Post. The fast-rising politician was racked with guilt from being distant and busy as she dealt with the unbearable pain of the breast cancer spreading through her body.

Newsom’s account of his mother’s death at the age of 55 by assisted suicide, and his feelings of grief and remorse toward a woman with whom he had a loving but complex relationship, is one of the most revealing and emotional passages in the California governor’s book, “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery,” which will be published Feb. 24.

Some call it assisted suicide, but it appears to have actually been a homicide because she was lethally injected by a doctor:

Forty-five minutes before the “courageous doctor” arrived to administer the medicine that would end her life, Newsom and his sister gave their mother her regular dose of painkillers to keep her comfortable, he said.

When the doctor arrived, Tessa Newsom lucidly answered his questions and told him she was sure of her decision, Gavin Newsom said. Her labored breathing and the gravity of the moment became too much for Newsom’s sister. She left the room. Newsom stayed.

“Then I sat there with her for another 20 minutes after she was dead,” he said, his voice breaking briefly and his eyes welling as he told the story. “My head on her stomach, just crying, waiting for another breath.”

Here’s the thing. If the “courageous doctor” intentionally administered an overdose with the intent to kill Tessa, it was murder, which is defined in California as “the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought.”

Malice in this context doesn’t mean ill will. Rather, “(1) Malice is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature.” That was clearly the case in Newsom’s telling.

It’s what she wanted! Perhaps. But under the law, a victim cannot consent to being murdered, so that would be no defense for the doctor.

But Wesley, it would be legal in California today! No, it wouldn’t. California’s assisted suicide law requires self-administration. So, under the law as it currently exists, if a doctor intentionally lethally injects someone with the intent to kill, it remains murder.

Despite the obvious emotional pain caused in witnessing his mother’s killing, Newsom says that he strongly supports legalizing assisted suicide. Of course he does. Legalizing assisted suicide is a liberal agenda item. And as I said, he’s clearly running for president.

So, the question is: Did Newsom break the law? If he did not participate directly in his mother’s killing or arrange for the doctor to do the deed, probably not.

But in a 2018 recounting, he told a New Yorker reporter a somewhat different story: “The night before we gave her the drugs I cooked her dinner, hard-boiled eggs, and she told me, ‘Get out of politics.’ She was worried about the stress on me.” Assisted suicide was illegal in 2002, so I don’t know.

I do wonder though, that if he had been continually caring for her so that she didn’t have to leave him a message about her plan, if he had tried to dissuade Tessa from having herself ended, and had facilitated the kind of medical care that might have made her not want to be killed, whether things might have turned out differently. Hospice, properly administered, can work wonders in that regard. But as Newsom said, he was “distant” from her and oh, so very busy.

Canadian woman approved for euthanasia, may go to the US for surgery.

Van Alstine does not want to die by euthanasia, but she is unable to get the necessary surgery for her condition in Canada. 

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Jolene Van Alstine lives in Regina SK

Joe Warmington reported for the Toronto Sun on December 10, 2025 that Jolene Van Alstine, who lives in Regina Canada, was approved for euthanasia rather than surgery medical treatment for her condition, has been offered by Glenn Beck, an American political commentator, to cover the cost of her medical treatment in America.

Kelsi Sheren, recently reported in her article: Surgery Denied - Death Approved, that: Van Alstine, who suffers from a rare but treatable parathyroid disease, has applied for MAiD not because she is dying, but because she can’t access the surgery that would let her live.

Warmington reported that:

The Regina mom of a 25-year-old son tells the Toronto Sun she prefers Glenn Beck’s idea of getting her the much-needed surgery stateside over dying. Time will tell if Van Alstine will be able to get the medical help she so desperately needs thanks to the American conservative media pundit who went to social-media platform X to offer to pay for her travel to the United States if an American surgeon can step up.

She has been offered some hope at living but knows there are no guarantees. It was an up-and-down day for her on Wednesday. Jolene was dealt a blow when a specialist in Atlanta said he didn’t think he could do the surgery she needed.

That was the bad news. Then there was some good news.

“He did make a referral to someone in Florida,” Van Alstine said. “They think they can do it. They have had difficult cases there before.”

Van Alstine told Warmington that:

no matter what happens with an offer to get her life-saving surgery in the U.S., she will always be grateful to Beck for caring about her.

“I greatly appreciate it. It’s an amazing offer and I can’t believe someone would do that,” the 45-year-old told the Toronto Sun from her hospital bed Wednesday night in Regina.

Warmington further reported that Van Alstine and her partner Miles Sundeen don't have passports and are trying to have their passports fast-tracked. Beck suggested that he may be able get approval for Van Alstine to enter the US through his contacts in the US government.

Van Alstine does not want to die by euthanasia (MAiD), she wants to receive effective surgery for her medical condition. Van Alstine is not the first Canadian to face this scenario.

Jennifer Brady

An article by Angela McIvor that was published by CBC News on September 18, 2024 reported that Jennifer Brady, who lives in Nova Scotia, was approved for MAiD (euthanasia) after being unable to obtain treatment for Lymphedema.

The good news is that an update to the story that was published by CBC News on September 18, 2025 explained that Brady won a 6-year court battle with the Nova Scotia government and has received treatment in New Jersey.

McIvor had to fight to be approved for treatment, but had no problem being approved for euthanasia.

Allison Ducluzeau

In December 2023 I published an article about Allison Ducluzeau who lives in Victoria BC. Decluzeau was diagnosed with abdominal cancer and offered MAiD (euthanasia) rather than treatment.  she was successfully treated at the Institute for Cancer Care at Mercy Medical Centre in Baltimore.

Allison Ducluzeau was offered euthanasia but not medical treatment. The Ducluzeau story concerned the fact that she was suing the BC Ministry of Health for the cost of the successful treatment that she received in Baltimore.

The wedding picture of Ducluzeau was taken in Hawaii. After Ducluzeau went into remission she decided to get married.

Van Alstine, Brady and Ducluzeau were all able to die by euthanasia but were not offered medical treatment for their conditions. Brady and Ducluzeau were successfully treated in the US. These are three out of many stories of Canadians who were denied or not offered effective medical treatment.

The Secret MAiD Case That Canada Hoped You’d Never See

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on her substack on December 2, 2025.

These Leaked Documents Reveal the Plot.

By Kelsi Sheren

Canada keeps insisting MAiD is “carefully regulated,” a “last resort,” and “only for Canadians who truly qualify.”

That story is dead and I’m going to show you how bad this really is.

A Freedom of Information release buried in 269 pages of bureaucratic emails shows something the government never expected anyone to see:

Three elected officials actively tried to secure an MSP health number for a woman who was not a resident, not a citizen, and not eligible under federal law… so she could be euthanized.

This wasn’t a misunderstanding. This wasn’t a clerical error. This was an attempt to turn Canada into a destination for state-sanctioned death.

Let’s walk through exactly what they did. The FOI shows that in July 2021 ->

Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament and then-leader of the federal Green Party

Adam Olsen, BC Green Party MLA

Murray Rankin, BC NDP MLA and Minister of Indigenous Relations.

…each wrote letters of political support for a woman name redacted who was not a permanent resident, not a citizen, had no permit, had no visa pathway to MSP, and had lived in Canada only as a “visitor” since 1990/91.

In other words: no legal eligibility for healthcare.

The politicians knew that. The Ministry knew that. And still they pushed hard. Thinking none of this would ever see daylight.

Today is that day. The purpose behind all this pressure? To get her a Personal Health Number so she could access MAiD. Not medical treatment. Not emergency care. Not residency.

Just euthanasia. Death by a needle and a paralytic.

This is not “compassion.” This is a government machine being bent to facilitate death tourism and here’s the thing: the ministry knew exactly what was happening.

Internal emails make it painfully clear that MAiD federally requires eligibility for public healthcare. The Ministry repeats it like a warning flare: “Visitors to Canada are not eligible for medical assistance in dying.”

Another official spells it out: “The client cannot qualify for MSP without a foundation document (permit, PR, citizenship).”

And the most stark line in the entire FOI: MSP should only be granted “on compassionate grounds so that she can access MAiD.”

There’s no ambiguity. No euphemism. No plausible deniability.

The only reason these politicians wanted MSP issued was to enable a foreign national to be euthanized by the Canadian state. MAiD tourism wasn’t a side effect it was the goal the entire damn time.

This wasn’t an attempt to help someone become a resident. No visa support. No PR application. No documentation pathway. The letters from May, Olsen, and Rankin all revolve around one mission: Get this woman a PHN so she can be killed under MAiD.

In one email, staff even warned: “Unless these provide new PR or citizenship status they unfortunately don’t address the factors.”

Translated: These politicians are trying to do something we legally can’t do. But the pressure kept coming anyway. And for what it’s worth?

This was escalated as “High Importance.” The Ministry scheduled a call with the client for July 23rd at 11:00 am a MAiD-related call.

They were ready to move fast. If this case has succeeded, Canada will have secretly created a new category of MAiD eligibility. Anyone from anywhere in the world can fly here and apply for state-sanctioned death as long as a sympathetic politician writes a letter.

No residency. No citizenship. No ties to Canada.

Just an express lane to death. And the public? Never consulted. Never informed.
Never asked whether they wanted their country turned into the world’s suicide embassy.

And here’s the uncomfortable reality. We don’t know for sure if the MAiD was carried out but if I’m betting, I’m betting it did.

Elizabeth May is not a fringe actor.
Adam Olsen is not a fringe actor.
Murray Rankin is not a fringe actor.

These are leaders in the Green Party and NDP two parties that aggressively pushed MAiD expansion.

Now we know what “expansion” meant behind closed doors.
They were willing to extend MAiD to non-Canadians in secret.

Ask yourself this, why are Canadian politicians working harder to help a non-citizen die…than they work to help Canadians live?

Why is it easier to get a politician’s support for euthanasia than for housing, healthcare, mental health treatment, or veterans’ support? Why did no one in government blow the whistle?

And what other cases like this exist that we haven’t seen? Where there’s smoke, there’s fire and now I’m digging. Deep.

MAiD was sold as dignity. It was sold as mercy. It was sold as a humane option for extreme cases. Those were lies, all of them. The mask has slipped.

When elected officials are trying to secure taxpayer-funded infrastructure to euthanize foreign nationals who aren’t even living here legally, the system is no longer compassionate.

It is industrial. It is bureaucratic. It is dehumanized. And it is out of control.

The FOI doesn’t show a “mistake.” It shows a machine doing exactly what it was built to do. Normalize death as a solution.

Not for Canadians alone. For anyone. Welcome to MAiD tourism. And it’s already started. The FOI documents don’t just reveal a single rogue letter. They reveal a coordinated political push involving:

A sitting federal MP (Elizabeth May) A BC MLA (Adam Olsen) A BC cabinet minister (Hon. Murray Rankin)

All acting within a 48-hour window. All applying pressure. All requesting a provincial health number for a woman who was not a Canadian resident, not a citizen, and not eligible for MAiD under federal law.

These were not bureaucratic mistakes. These were political interventions and here is what accountability looks like the bare minimum any functioning democracy should expect.

Murray Rankin: The Minister Who Tried to Influence MAiD Eligibility

Rankin’s involvement carries the greatest weight. He wasn’t simply an MLA with opinions he was a sitting cabinet minister writing on official Legislative Assembly letterhead, invoking his authority as:

“Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.”

His letter expresses “unqualified support” for granting an emergency MSP number to the applicant. He knew she was not a resident, not eligible, not covered — and still pushed the Health Minister to make it happen. The purpose is self-evident from the internal emails:

Grant MSP → Enable MAiD.

A cabinet minister trying to steer a non-resident into state-sanctioned euthanasia is a structural failure that demands a structural consequence.

What should happen next is simple. A formal ministerial conduct investigation
Assess misuse of authority, inappropriate intervention, and violation of health-policy boundaries. Full public disclosure of his involvement. Who asked him to intervene? Did he coordinate with May or Olsen? What did he know about the MAiD intent? Permanent disqualification from public office if misconduct is confirmed A minister who tries to influence eligibility for state-administered death especially for a foreign national has forfeited public trust.

Adam Olsen: The MLA Who Pushed for “Compassionate” MSP to Enable MAiD

Olsen’s letter asked for MSP on “compassionate grounds,” despite full knowledge that the woman had no citizenship, no permanent residency, no legal eligibility, no basis for MSP.

He even invoked Indigenous identity in support of the request adding ethical weight to an already reckless intervention.

What should happen next is a retroactive ethics review. His actions must be formally evaluated by BC’s legislative standards office. A public explanation. He must explain why he intervened and whether the effort was coordinated with May and Rankin. Accountability within the BC Green Party. The party must clarify whether this conduct aligns with their values or if they repudiate it.

Elizabeth May: The Sitting MP Who Still Holds Power. May is the only one still in elected office. Her letter acknowledges the applicant is not a permanent resident, not eligible for MSP, and would not qualify under normal circumstances.

Yet she still pushed for temporary MSP specifically to enable MAiD. A federal MP attempting to influence provincial health systems to euthanize a foreign national is not compassion. It is a misuse of political influence for a purpose no Canadian voted for.

What should happen at a bare minimum, FIRED. Immediate investigation by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. This is textbook misuse of office. Mandatory parliamentary hearing She must publicly answer:
– Why she intervened
– What she understood about the MAiD eligibility rules
– Whether this was coordinated
– Whether she has done this before

Potential censure or resignation depending on findings. When the issue is life and death, consequences must match the stakes.

Three Politicians. Forty-Eight Hours. One Objective.

This was not a coincidence. This was not random empathy. This was not a compassionate outlier.

This was a coordinated attempt by three elected officials municipal, provincial, and federal to pressure a healthcare system to euthanize a foreign national who did not qualify under any law.

You cannot spin your way out of that. You cannot redact your way out of that and you cannot pretend Canadians consented to becoming a destination for state-administered death.

This is what MUST HAPPEN NEXT.

Investigations. Hearings. Public accountability. Consequences.

Because if a government is willing to kill someone outside the system, it has already abandoned the idea of protecting the people within it.

KELSI SHEREN

My Personal Experience With Suicide Prevention

This article was published by Choiceisanillusion on November 15, 2025

Margaret Dore

By Margaret Dore

In another life, most likely in 1980 when I was 23 years old, I talked three young men down from suicide.

What I think happened is that a final exit network person had given them my phone number by mistake. This was before the age of caller ID.

I was contacted by each of the three young men over a period of time, each one wanting assistance to kill himself.

I called a suicide prevention person to ask what I should do, i.e., with regard to the first one. The person told me to ask the suicidal person why? To engage him.

Green Lake Park

So that’s what I did. I met each young man at a local park, which I thought would be safe for me. I asked each young man why, and then I tried to expand to other topics.

The last one I got him laughing. He told me that he no longer felt like killing himself.

To the best of my knowledge they all lived, but I don't know for sure.

Zoom event: Family members who died by (MAiD) euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Register for the Zoom event on Wednesday November 12 at 7 pm (Eastern Time) concerning family members who have died by (MAiD) euthanasia.

EPC has received many calls from family members or friends of people who have died by euthanasia. This is a very difficult topic for people and most people decide not to go public with their experience often based on complicated grief.

Please register for this Zoom event in advance (Registration Link).

The five participants are:

• Alicia Duncan is the daughter of Donna Duncan who died by euthanasia in October 2021 in British Columbia.
• Professor Christopher Lyon wrote a moving article about his father's death by euthanasia in British Columbia. Lyon has since done significant research into Canada's euthanasia experience.
• Colleen De Vos has just started speaking about her father's death by euthanasia.
• Sharon Danley lost her son to euthanasia in December 2021. Her was living with mental health issues.
  
• Rod & Louise McDonald published a book of poetry as a way to heal after their daughter (48) died by euthanasia.

Please register in advance for the November 12 Zoom event (Registration Link).

George Clooney, Annette Bening to star in Pro-Assisted-Suicide movie

This article was published by National Review online on October 17, 2025.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Two A-List Hollywood actors will star in a pro-assisted-suicide movie. From the Hollywood Reporter story:

George Clooney and Annette Bening will star in In Love, an adaptation of Amy Bloom’s New York Times best-selling memoir In Love: A Memoir of Love and Loss that is to be directed by Paul Weitz. . . .

With In Love, Bloom wrote about how her she slowly lost her husband to Alzheimer’s, how the two made the decision to travel to Switzerland to end his life, and the struggle to move forward as a widow. The book was an affirmation of love and the power of relationships. It was also named TIME Magazine’s No. 1 best nonfiction book and included on their list of 100 must-read books.

Of course! To Big Time Hollywood, adjacent glitterati, and much of the mainstream media, truly loving someone with Alzheimer’s means being willing to help them become dead rather than caring for them as long as they live.

This is almost trite. How many pro-euthanasia movies/TV episodes have there been? It’s hard to keep count. How many anti-assisted-suicide/pro-care projects? Honestly, I can’t think of one even though there are plenty of dramatic stories illustrating the abuses and dangers just waiting to be told.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., founder of the American Spectator magazine, coined a term kulturesmog, meaning “ideas that are incompatible with traditional American social, cultural, and economic ideals.” That term sure seems apt here.

People Magazine article sells couple assisted suicide death porn.

Their daughter was constantly on the phone, speaking to hospice coordinators and doctors trying to get her dad qualified for hospice and MAID.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An exclusive article written by Vanessa Etienne and published by People Magazine on October 8, 2025 reads like an assisted suicide lobby article that was paid for to sell couple suicide by making a couple killing part of a "love" story. This story feels like death porn.

Further to that the death story features a daughter who becomes intimately involved with arranging the assisted suicide deaths of her parents. From the article:

Corinne Gregory Sharpe always had a strong relationship with her parents, Eva and Druse Neumann. “We all were close and tight-knit,” the private professional chef from Port Ludlow, Washington, says. But in 2021, she helped both of them end their own lives with medical aid in dying — a journey she calls a “painful paradox.”

Now, four years after their deaths, the 61-year-old is opening up exclusively to PEOPLE about their last moments together and why she advocated for them to die on their own terms.

Eva and Druse Newmann died by assisted suicide in Washington state, where assisted suicide was legalized in 2009 after the law passed in a state voter initiative.

The story suggests that Eva qualified for assisted suicide but Druse didn't want to be left-alone after her death. From the article:

Meanwhile, Eva’s decision to die left Druse distraught. “I had a very interesting, serious heart-to-heart conversation with him one evening after my mom had gone to bed,” Corinne shares. “And he was just panicked like, ‘What happens to me if she goes first?’ That's always been a concern of his. He couldn't see a scenario where he would want to continue if mom was gone.”

“He's always been afraid of dying. But I think he was more afraid of being left alone,” she explains. “He was like, ‘Well, if she's gonna go and I have the option to go at the same time, then I'm getting on that horse.’ So I was like, look, we'll figure something out.”

In other words, Eva seems to qualify, under the law, to die by assisted suicide but Druse did not. So Corinne made it her goal to get Druse to qualify to be killed. The story states:

From that point, Corinne was constantly on the phone, speaking to hospice coordinators and doctors trying to get her dad qualified for hospice and MAID. She admits it was “surreal” to be essentially advocating for her own father’s death. By mid-June, Druse was successfully qualified based on his history of mini-strokes.

Corinne says it was “a race” to get her dad qualified, and the justification from doctors came down to the strong possibility of her father suffering a stroke that wouldn’t kill him, but would leave him incapacitated.

After receiving the lethal poison for her parents, Corinne suggests that the death occur on Friday, August 13, 2021 as part of a "wicked" death.

People Magazine may have received money from the assisted suicide lobby for Vanessa Etienne to write this quircky and dangerous article promoting couple assisted suicide.

This article shows you just how bad the assisted suicide lobby has become. The reality is that this article provides enough information to open an investigation into the deaths of Eva and Druse Neumann.

Even considering the lack of oversight of the Washington State assisted suicide law, it is questionable, at best, that Druse actually qualified for assisted suicide. This story suggests that Corinne went out of her way to arrange her father's death.

I really hope that authorities in Washington State will investigate these deaths.

• Previous articles about this topic (Articles Link).

My story: No to MAiD for Mental Illness.

The following true story was sent to our EPC "Story Contest."

You can visit our "contributor info" (Link) "recent stories" (Link) and "story index" (Link). All formats are welcome, especially short videos. We would be thrilled to receive your story at: story@epcc.ca

Video interview by Alex Schadenberg with Peter Oliver (youtube Link).

By Peter Oliver

My Condition

Peter Oliver

I'm a 61-year-old man and I have experienced depression for more than forty years. It is chronic, meaning that it is a long-term condition and there is no reason to believe it will ever be relieved. It is also constant, meaning that there is never an occasion when I do not feel some level of depression. It is sometimes debilitating, meaning that profound feelings of tiredness, hopelessness, pessimism, despair and self-critical thinking become so overwhelming that, on some occasions, I must withdraw to a darkened room for several hours and sit quietly until these harmful feelings lighten up.

Interventions

Over the last 40 plus years, I have had the support of 4 psychologists and 1 psychiatrist who have provided quite literally 100s of hours of professional support. Medications, exercise, meditation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, supportive community, proper diet, reading, hobbies, journaling and prayer are all part of the regime of interventions that play a role in addressing my condition. Despite the disciplined and sustained attention to these interventions my depression remains constant, chronic and sometimes debilitating.

My Life

My wife and I have been happily married for 30 years, and we have three adult children. All of our children have completed university educations, and they are beginning to establish stable living situations. Two of them experience significant levels of mental distress.

My professional formation includes studies in psychiatric nursing, a philosophy degree, and a Masters degree in pastoral theology. I have worked in a variety of labor positions (farm, factory, construction) have acted as a care aid to a man dying from MS, have been a camp councillor for children who have disabilities, been a teacher's assistant in support of severely disabled children, acted as a pastoral assistant in a Roman Catholic parish, provided chaplaincy services in both provincial and federal corrections, and currently, I am the Executive Director of the Catholic Health Association of Saskatchewan.

Approximately 8 years ago I was diagnosed with colon cancer. This was successfully treated by a partial colectomy. My wife wittily says, he used to have a colon now he has a semicolon (ha, ha).

While still in the hospital and in a particularly vulnerable state, arising from being twenty-five days without food, I was informed that my employment was terminated. Recovery from the surgery and finding a new avenue for employment took a full year.

I include this because it seems important to recognize that mental health challenges are further complicated by other life events.

Family of Origin

My father, a farmer, who worked hard and did his best to love his family, was deeply, chronically and constantly depressed as well. He did not have any of the assistance that I have been privileged to receive. It was a mood disorder which found expression in ruminative behaviour (in hours of swearing throughout the night), rejection of bathing, angry outbursts, and paralyzed communication. These were some of the primary ingredients of my childhood.

He died at 73 (unlike his other 5 siblings who live into their 80s and 90s) and I would submit that depression was a significant contributor to his earlier death.

My mother, born during the second world war, and a person of remarkable grit, struggled mightily with the challenges of my father’s mental health but successfully navigated them, raising six children who have become contributing members of our country in farming, healthcare, the service industry, and pastoral care.

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD)

The Government of Canada website on assisted suicide, euphemistically referred to as Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) states: 

"Important: On February 29, 2024, legislation to extend the temporary exclusion of eligibility to receive MAID in circumstances where a person's sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness received royal assent and immediately came into effect. The eligibility date for persons suffering solely from a mental illness is now March 17, 2027.”

As of March 17, 2027, I will qualify to be assessed for assisted suicide. The primary issue would be, do I find the depression I experience intolerable? It is fair to say, I could make an excellent case for a positive assessment.

So, allow me be blunt about the implication of these changes.

A positive assessment would mean, the Government of Canada believes that a legitimate response to my condition is to have a medical professional inject a poisonous substance into my arm causing my death.

Sign our EPC petition: No MAiD for Mental Illness (Link).

I Am Offended

With many other people from the mental health and disability community, I AM OFFENDED!  

The Government of Canada, which is charged with the responsibility of fostering the fullness of life for its citizens, is prepared to activate legislation that says, "We agree with you. You would be better off dead!" 

After years of disciplined and constructive action in relation to my condition, am I now to live in a country that invests millions of dollars employing the services of medical professionals who will end the lives of people "whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness"? Am I now to live in a country that clearly states in word and action, “some depressed people are better off dead”?

Expectations

What I expect from the government of Canada is a resounding message and actions that say, "We stand on guard for you." We strive to build a nation of courageous people who can meet affliction, ordeal, and privation with fortitude. Where no individual is thought of as “better off dead”. 

As the saying goes, you can't serve two masters. One you will honour and one you will despise. You cannot build a great nation that simultaneously expects its medical professionals to provide healing, hope, and encouragement while also supporting legislation that provides a mandate for doctors and nurses to kill depressed patients. The result is inevitable, our citizen’s respect for people with mental health concerns will erode and our nation will begin to glorify assisted suicide.

As a person whose family has struggled with mental health, whose children strive to meet mental health concerns, and who daily meets the challenges of a mental health condition, this is not what we need and not what we want!

*Sharing a story about your struggle with mental illness is difficult but it is necessary for supporting Bill C-218 that will prevent MAiD for Mental Illness alone.

Sign our EPC petition: No MAiD for Mental Illness (Link).