EPC victory. Court denies Brosseau euthanasia for mental illness.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have good news. Justice Carissima Mathen denied Claire Brosseau and Dying With Dignity an injunction to approve Brosseau to be killed by euthanasia (MAiD) based on mental illness as the sole criteria. Brosseau lives in Toronto Ontario.

(Link to the court decision).

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) intervened in the Brosseau case and participated in the hearings on July 21/22, 2026. (Read). 

The cost to intervene in a court case is prohibitive. EPC continues to need at least $20,000 in donations to cover our current intervention costs. (Donation Link).

Mathen wrote:

For the following reasons, I find that the balance of convenience does not favour granting the relief that Ms. Brosseau seeks.

The "relief" that Brosseau was seeking was death by euthanasia. Mathen writes: 

The question at the heart of the balance of convenience inquiry is where the risk of error is best placed. That risk is for the judge hearing the plea for interlocutory relief; they must consider what happens if they apply the test incorrectly: Sharpe, at p. 26. In constitutional cases, determining that risk can be exceptionally difficult. In this case, Ms. Brosseau has presented compelling evidence of the harm she is and likely will continue to suffer. At the same time, the interests on the other side are considerable. They include Parliament’s role to make policy decisions on sensitive social issues, and the proper interpretation of the Charter rights in play. On a full record, an application judge will have the tools to fully consider those interests and questions. On the current record, the court does not have such tools. Therefore, it is not possible to find for Ms. Brosseau on the relief that she seeks.

In other words, Mathen did not "grant relief" (approving euthanasia for Brosseau) because the court lacked the information that would be needed in order to make such a decision, but the information would be obtained in a full hearing, rather than an injunction hearing that this hearing represented.

This was a victory, but there is also bad news as the case of euthanasia for mental illness will continue in the court since Justice Mathen essentially found that Brosseau's case had merit.

Kristy Kirkup reported for the Globe and Mail on September 3:

In a written decision Thursday, Justice Carissima Mathen described how Ms. Brosseau presented compelling evidence of the harm she has suffered and will likely continue to endure.

Justice Mathen also noted the considerable interests on the other side including “Parliament’s role to make policy decisions on sensitive social issues and the proper interpretation of the Charter rights in play.”

I found it astounding that Justice Mathen mentions The report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD): Mental Disorder as the Sole Underlying Medical Condition: A Complex and Challenging Conversation Among Canadians that was released on June 17, 2026 but Mathen doesn't respond to the concerns of the government committee. The AMAD Committee advised the government to indefinitely pause the inclusion of (MAiD) euthanasia for mental illness.

Dr Marcus Powlowski MP

As part of the supplemental information in the report, committee chair Dr Marcus Powlowski, the Liberal MP from Thunder Bay - Rainy River explains his position on Canada's Charter by stating (starting at page 63 of the report):

I think the courts ought to conclude, as did our committee, that not allowing MAiD for mental illness, until such time as some fundamental concerns are addressed, is a reasonable limitation under s.1. These fundamental concerns are the difficulty/perhaps even impossibility of determining irremediability of mental suffering (a core requirement under the law), and the lack of ability to distinguish suicidality from rational decision making in someone with a mental illness (I will return to this issue, and explain why it is so important, at the end of this submission). Numerous witnesses cited these concerns as reasons why we should decline to expand MAiD to this population.

Powlowski argued that since Canada's law requires a person to have an irremediable medical condition, to be approved for euthanasia that the law would need to be amended to approve euthanasia for mental illness alone. He wrote:

But perhaps we will never be ready for MAiD for mental illness as the law is currently written. Numerous very experienced psychiatrists told us of seemingly irremediable cases where for some reason patients, after prolonged periods of seemingly irremediable suffering, the person eventually got better and started to enjoy life again. Furthermore, what evidence there is seems to suggest psychiatrists can not accurately predict who will not get better. 

Perhaps the simplest solution to the legal question is to recognize the requirement of irremediability as being dispositive of the issue. The law as written requires irremediability. If there is really no way to accurately determine irremediability it would seem we would need to change the law if we want to allow for MAiD for mental illness. 

Powlowski commented on the role of parliament and the role of the courts:

I would suggest the elected legislature is totally justified in drawing a line, in deciding that we are unwilling to support the state enabling physicians to taking the life of someone who, perhaps, would have gotten better. The decision of whether we do so is a moral decision and very much a reflection of what we value as a society. As such it is a decision more appropriately made by those of us who are elected by the members of society, and who are ultimately accountable to the people- at the poll box, rather than the unelected courts.

These comments were important and Justice Mathen should have considered them as part of her decision. The euthanasia lobby want the court to legislate from the bench by the court legislating euthanasia for mental illness as a sole criteria. 

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.

Training and normalizing (MAiD) medical homicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was speaking to an Ontario palliative care nurse who said that she recently participated in a required (MAiD) euthanasia training session. The training session didn't force her to participate in the act but the session promoted participation in euthanasia and explained how to do it.

Euthanasia (medical homicide) is the killing of a person upon request. It is done by injecting the person with poison drugs that paralyze and put the person into coma and then prevents the lungs from breathing, which causes death.

The nurse said that she was surprised to learn, at the session, that Canadians who are not terminally ill, could be killed by (MAiD) medical homicide.

The nurse stated that she completely opposes euthanasia and would not participate in euthanasia, nonetheless, she was required to attend the "MAiD" training session.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition opposes killing people.

Normalizing killing.

Normalization is a process that reduces the natural opposition to killing. Throughout human history when a society decides that it is OK to kill a certain class of people, that process starts with propaganda and is followed by a normalization process.

Medical homicide training sessions are designed to increase the number of willing killers as well as to normalize the act.

Selling euthanasia.

We have received many calls from supporters who are shocked when a doctor or nurse asks them if they want (MAiD) euthanasia, an act that they would never consider. 

Often the person is asked, many time, if they want to be killed. They are even asked after saying NO. One supporter called and said that her husband was asked 5 times.

Asking patients if they want to be killed by euthanasia is another normalization technique as it creates the impression that euthanasia is the same as any other medical procedure and it is a way of selling euthanasia.

What was sold to the culture as being a free choice, is now being sold to the public as the choice. But to sell killing to the public society avoids the reality, that euthanasia is about killing people. 

It is not compassionate, it is not about freedom, and for many it is not about choice, it is about killing and it is often an abandonment of a person in need.

Contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition if you have felt "pressured" or "coerced" to consider euthanasia or if you are a medical professional who has felt pressured to participate in killing.

Your story is important, not only to inform the public, but also to give others permission to also tell their story. Change will only come after

Family files euthanasia (MAiD) complaint to the Chief Coroner of Ontario.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Brigitte with her grand daughter.

On July 22, 2026 I contacted Brigitte Stegemann's family and received permission to republish the facebook posting concerning the death of Brigitte.

Kelsi Sheren has confirmed that Brigitte was killed by euthanasia (MAiD) based on questionable competency and consent by Dr Catherine Louise Koester.

There were several issues that should be considered infractions of Canada's euthanasia (MAiD) law.

Sheren reported on August 17 that family has filed a complaint to the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario in the death of their grand-mother.

Sheren outlined the complaint to the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario:

Brigitte — GG’s granddaughter, namesake, twelve-year caregiver, Power of Attorney for personal care — has formally requested an investigation by the MAiD Death Review Team into the death of July 10 at The Pearl in Cannifton, Ontario, licensed to Pearl Care Homes Inc. and formerly E.J. McQuigge Lodge.

These are their reasons, below, along with the original email.

Capacity. Documented cognitive disorientation during the assessment, in which GG could not recall basic facts about her own family. You read what that looked like: the second-youngest of fourteen children telling the assessing physician she had no siblings, then breaking down in confusion, while her family corrected the majority of her answers out loud.

The Power of Attorney, bypassed. Staff initiated private MAiD discussions and completed and witnessed the application paperwork in secret, while the advocate was out of the country for ten days.

No final express consent. The procedure went ahead on the morning of July 10 while GG stayed completely silent and never gave the verbal confirmation the family had been promised, strictly and repeatedly, would be required.

They are asking the Chief Coroner to examine the attending clinician’s compliance, and the conduct of the home’s staff, under the Coroners Act and the Criminal Code.

Kelsi Sheren further explains what the complaint concerns:

Now put the three allegations against that MAID narrative. A capacity finding on a woman who couldn’t name her siblings. Paperwork the home’s manager filled out herself. A death that proceeded through silence.

The death certificate and its stated cause. Both eligibility assessments the law requires, and the identity of whoever performed the second one. The signed request, its date, its witness. The full medication administration record and any waiver of final consent, which remains the whole case: either the procedure went ahead without the express consent the law demands, or a waiver exists that nobody mentioned to the family, including while assuring them of the safeguard it would have cancelled.

This case will determine if Ontario's death system has any oversight. Sheren states:

The granddaughter asked the home for the records. She was refused, repeatedly.

GG told the people offering her death that her faith said no. Nine weeks later she had an appointment. When the last safeguard came she met it with silence, and the family who’d been promised silence would stop it watched it not stop.

Her granddaughter has now done every single thing this system asks of a family that believes something went wrong. Kept the records. Built the timeline. Filed with the coroner. Named the doctor.

What happens next isn’t a test of this family. It’s a test of whether Canadian oversight of assisted death can do anything at all when someone walks in with a timeline, a Power of Attorney, and a name.

Kelsi Sheren contacted Dr Catherine Louise Koester and The Pearl for their response and has received no response. 

If your family has experienced a MAiD death you believe was non-compliant or coerced, in Canada or elsewhere, contact me confidentially at coaching@kelsisheren.com. Anonymity is guaranteed unless you choose otherwise, and nothing you share is published without your consent.

Links to the articles on the death of Brigitte (GG) Stegemann

• The family filed. Here's the name. Dr. Kate Koester (Link).
• The last ten days of Brigitte "GG" Stegemann (Link).
• Our Families Experience with Medical Assistance in Dying (Link).

Euthanasia in France—Contrary to the Constitution, Hope, and Dignity

Open Letter to the Members of the Constitutional Council: Medical Aid in Dying in France—Contrary to the Constitution, Hope, and Dignity

Dr Paul Saba

By Dr Paul Saba, a family physician in Lachine Quebec.

You only need to walk through the halls of a hospital long enough to discover the reality that lies behind the numbers. Patients aren’t just medical records; they’re people. The difference between hope and despair often comes down to a door that opens… or remains closed. The new laws on assisted suicide claim to be about choice, but anyone who has worked in the medical field knows how quickly that “choice” crumbles under pressure. There’s the cancer patient living in a cramped, noisy apartment; the woman with a disability who can’t afford to go grocery shopping; the elderly man living alone who fears for his future. They’re told they have the right to die with dignity, but what they really need is the right to live with dignity.

Canada’s experience should give us pause for thought. Since 2016, when the law was first enacted, 100,000 Canadians have died by medical assistance in dying, many of whom still had years, even decades, left to live. What was initially presented as an option reserved for terminally ill patients has expanded to include people with chronic illnesses and mental health conditions. Quebec alone accounts for 8% of the total deaths by assisted dying, the highest rate in Canada and worldwide. These numbers are rising every year.

Initially, the system was based on strict criteria, but the boundaries have quietly shifted. We are hearing more and more stories of people requesting assisted dying because they are unable to access home care, accessible housing, or adequate food. “Dignity” is becoming a code word for cost-cutting, while the most vulnerable find themselves facing a maze with no way out. Consent is not a box to check. It is a conversation, a process, and, above all, a reflection of the options available to the individual.

When a person is sick, frightened, and overwhelmed by bills, to what extent is their freedom of choice truly real? Loneliness and poverty influence decisions just as much as physical distress or a diagnosis. Advocates for this cause believe that safeguards will hold firm, but in practice, the boundaries are shifting. The line between compassion and abandonment is blurring, especially when budgets are tight and beds are scarce. I have seen families exhausted by the burden of care, patients who would rather disappear than ask for help, and medical staff powerless in the face of bureaucracy.

France, just like Canada, lacks adequate health care, particularly when it comes to general practitioners, emergency room doctors, and timely access to specialists. Legalizing assisted suicide without fixing our failing health care systems is tantamount to telling people that some lives are too complicated to be supported. It is easier to pass a law than to put a safety net in place. True dignity comes from community, commitment, and the refusal to abandon anyone. Until every patient has a comfortable bed, quality care, and a sympathetic ear, we will not have the right to offer a way out.

Beyond these practical and moral concerns, the French bill also contradicts the country’s Constitution.

First, unlike in France, where the protection of health enjoys constitutional recognition (Preamble to the Constitution of October 27, 1946, para. 11, incorporated into the constitutional framework; see, in particular, the case law of the Constitutional Council), the Canadian Constitution contains no provision expressly guaranteeing such a right. The constitutional mandate of the French state is to protect life and health by guaranteeing access to care, treatment, and palliative care, rather than by establishing a medical aid in dying program.

Furthermore, the law on medical assistance in dying disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, particularly people with disabilities, chronic illnesses, or associated mental health conditions who, in the absence of adequate care and social support, may feel pressured to end their lives prematurely. This constitutes a direct violation of the constitutional right not only to health and life but also to equality, as it creates a situation where certain citizens are effectively encouraged to die because their needs are not being met.

Similarly, the principle of liberty requires that consent be free and informed. However, when a person is experiencing physical or associated psychological distress, is isolated, and lacks support, their ability to make a clear and not coerced decision is compromised. The law’s failure to guarantee truly voluntary consent risks undermining this fundamental constitutional liberty.

Let me tell you a story. Eight years ago, John (a pseudonym), a highly knowledgeable engineer, came to see me for a cough. A chest X-ray suggested lung cancer. He could have given up at that point, since Canadian law allows patients to refuse tests and seek assisted dying prematurely. But I convinced him to undergo further testing. It turned out to be Hodgkin’s lymphoma, It is entirely treatable. Today, John is alive and in good health.

Unfortunately, a recent study revealed that 13% of patients who died by assisted suicide after a diagnosis of lung cancer had never undergone a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis and were less likely to consult oncologists or receive treatment.

Another patient, Rachel (also a pseudonym), in her 50s, was diagnosed with breast cancer. After surgery, tumor cells remained and grew rapidly. At first, frightened and desperate, she refused chemotherapy and immunotherapy, even going so far as to stop eating. Eventually, she agreed to treatment and made a full recovery. Rachel said that cancer can drive a person crazy and cloud their judgment. It was hope that saved her. 

These are not isolated cases. As a physician responsible for reviewing cases of assisted dying, I find that most involve people suffering from medical conditions or disabilities exacerbated by social isolation, feelings of being a burden, loss of autonomy, and psychological distress. Physical pain, which could be relieved, is often the least common reason.

A recent study estimated that making assisted dying available to vulnerable groups in Canada—including, but not limited to, the homeless, people with substance use disorders, retirees, the elderly, and Indigenous communities—could save 1,273 billion CAD (791 billion EUR) by 2047, resulting in 2.6 million deaths. This scenario could easily apply to France if it were to follow the same path.

This raises a frightening question: Are we broadening eligibility criteria to eliminate citizens for financial gain rather than to care for and support them? This approach devalues human life and fosters a dangerous mindset, according to which the easy solution to complex health and social problems is to eliminate vulnerable individuals rather than invest in care. It creates a conflict of interest in which governments profit, directly or indirectly, from the deaths of their citizens. It also raises profound ethical questions for healthcare professionals.

France has the opportunity to prevent this. Do not be fooled by rhetoric about autonomy and dignity when basic needs are not being met. Assisted dying destroys hope. It pushes people to give up before their time. Hope is the greatest strength of quality care—the conviction that every step forward counts. Assisted dying prematurely puts an end to that hope.

I urge you to protect the most vulnerable, to invest in care, and to reject laws that offer shortcuts instead of safety nets and options for extended care. Until every patient has access to the care, support, and dignity they deserve, no law authorizing assisted dying can be considered, much less regarded as an act of compassion.

Respectfully, 
Dr. Paul Saba 
Maître Natalia Manole 

Dr. Paul Saba is a Canadian physician who has practiced medicine around the world. He currently practices family medicine in Montreal. He is a co-founder of the Physicians' Alliance against Euthanasia (https://collectifmedecins.org/en/about/) and author of the book *Made to Live* (madetolive.com) +1 514-886-3447 

Alicia Duncan's Book Launch in Abbotsford and Vancouver BC - August 20/21.

Join Alex Schadenberg and attend the book launch for the powerful - The Other Side of the Straightjacket, by Alicia Duncan.

EPC is promoting the Book Launch Celebrations on: August 20 in Abbotsford and August 21 in Vancouver.

August 20, 2026 - The book launch is at: The Reach Gallery Museum, 32388 Veterans Way, Abbotsford BC V2T 0B3 from 6:30 - 9:00 pm (Link to register).

August 21, 2026 - Author presentation and book signing is at Suite Genius, 225 W 8th Ave Vancouver BC V5Y 1N3 from 6:30 - 8:00 pm (Link to register).

 

Purchase the book from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition for $25 (plus shipping) (Purchase Link).

In 2021, Alicia’s mother, Donna Duncan, died by Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), a death that sparked national controversy and led to the first police investigation into a MAiD death in Canada. What began as a daughter’s search for answers became years of advocacy, legal action, and a mission to expose troubling gaps in the systems mean't to protect vulnerable people.

Donna’s story has been featured by major media outlets, including the BBC documentary Better Off Dead? and CBC’s The Fifth Estate. Alicia has since become a recognized voice in the national and international conversation around assisted dying, most recently providing testimony to Canada’s Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying (AMAD).

More than anything, these events are about the story behind the book: why Alicia felt compelled to write it, what she learned in the process, and why these conversations matter now more than ever.

• Article: How the narrative control is narrowing Canada's MAiD debate (Read).
• Article: Alicia Duncan, History will remember the lives saved or lost (Read).

Event in Jordon Ontario - Exposing Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia in Canada (August 13)

Lessons on opposing MAiD in Canada

Rachel Parker Live and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition are sponsoring an important event in Jordan Ontario

Date: Thursday, August 13 at 7 pm.

Location: The Jordan Hotel

(Purchase tickets) 

Use discount code: RP FOLLOWER 

An evening with: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Executive Director, Alex Schadenberg, podcaster Rachel Parker and author / activist Jonathon Van Maren.

The evening provides excellent speakers and an incredible opportunity to focus-on and share what needs to be done to change Canada's future. 

(Purchase tickets) 

 

Is MAiD Medical Murder? A Podcast Discussion

Podcast exposes red flags regarding MAiD in Canada

Viviana Runstedler
Staff Writer, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Christopher Shaw

*The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition refers to (MAiD) euthanasia as medical homicide.

We are pleased to share information on a podcast episode that exposes the truth about (MAiD) euthanasia in Canada that mainstream podcasts avoid discussing.

On an episode aired July 17th 2026, the Children’s Health Defense (Canada Chapter) interviewed two medical professionals about (MAiD) euthanasia in Canada. 

Dr Christopher Shaw is a neuroscientist and professor at the University of British Columbia as well as the co-chair of the scientific and medical advisory committee of the Canadian Citizens Care Alliance. Dr York N. Hsiang is a professor emeritus of surgery also at the University of British Columbia and a member of the scientific and medical advisory committee of the Canadian Citizens Care Alliance. Together, these two doctors presented a helpful overview of the current state of MAiD in Canada and shared eye-opening information concerning the ongoing execution of MAiD.

Dr York N. Hsiang

Dr Hsiang began by reminding listeners that MAiD is now the 5th leading cause of death in Canada and is an effective way to recoup healthcare costs. He briefly reviews recent discussions to expand Canadian MAiD approvals for mental illness and for minors. He went on to discuss issues within the current MAiD system.

One major issue presented by Dr Hsiang involves the misuse and misunderstanding of the drugs used in MAiD. The drugs used in Canada are essentially anesthetics used in very high doses to cause death. He referenced a 2022 article in the Canadian Medical Association journal that “only 21% of the physicians who are actively giving MAiD can be said to fully understand the drugs that they are giving for MAiD” (timestamp 8:30)

Dr Hsiang continues:

“about a quarter of patients took over an hour to die. And this is, clinically, this meaning you no longer have a heartbeat. Your brain could still be functioning, but you no longer have a heartbeat and so you are then deemed to be dead. The shocking thing is that when you actually look at the drugs that are being used, many of the drugs, in particular being the kill shot, the cardio-toxic drugs, in one quarter of those patients was not given. Why was that? Was that the reason why patients were taking over 1 hour to die? At the same time when MAiD is explained to be a painless procedure, less than one percent of the patients actually received a true medication for pain, in other words a narcotic. Very very surprising. And so, I have concerns that as the program gets expanded even more there’s going to be more practitioners that want to get on to this because it is lucrative and the majority of them don’t have any training. Nobody has training in how to kill a patient, our whole training is how to save a patient and keep them alive.” (timestamp 10:15)

Dr Hsiang is not the first doctor we have heard expressing concern about the administration of euthanasia and how the drugs may actually affect the person experiencing a euthanasia death. EPC has previously reported on euthanasia deaths which caused great distress to the deceased and family members present at the death. 

The National Post also covered this issue in 2022, recognizing that until euthanasia was legalized, doctors had never given doses this large of these particular drugs. The National Post article included a quote from Dr Joel Zivot suggesting that euthanasia could “feel like drowning” and that he “worries paralytics could mask an unpleasant death.” Zivot’s conclusions were based on his work studying capital punishment via lethal injection in the US which uses a common sedative to Canadian euthanasia protocol.

Another red flag that Dr Hsiang has identified in Canada is:

“physician zealots who contact family practitioner offices, and this I have heard from discussing this with family doctors, that they want to know on each family doctor’s list how many patients are eligible for MAiD. There is a financial incentive for these doctors since they are reimbursed quite well for a very short procedure.” (timestamp 9:08)

This quote highlights the pressure being placed on many Canadians to accept and utilize euthanasia. Discussion also turned to the Dying with Dignity Canada “Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Activity Book” created for children. This child-centric material is especially dark considering the context of possible expansion of MAiD eligibility to impressionable minors.

Dr Hsiang and Dr Shaw also speculate that since euthanasia is used to facilitate organ donation, the expansion of eligibility to minors would increase accessibility to “younger” organs for donation and this may be a contributing factor behind these criteria expansions. We have covered several of these issues on the blog over the years; our posts related to organ donation can be found here.

Drs Hsiang and Shaw are currently working on a book about euthanasia, expected to be published next year. The portion of the podcast regarding euthanasia ends at timestamp 16:40. We thank these doctors for working independently of mainstream discussions to bring these issues to light in an open forum.

The Last Ten Days of Brigittte (GG) Stegemann

This article was published by Kelsi Sheren on substack on July 27, 2026.

By Kelsi Sheren

An 83 year old Ontario woman declined medical assistance in dying, telling her family it conflicted with her Christian faith. Two months later with discussions restarted behind her advocate’s back, her capacity assessed in a meeting her family calls a farce, and her paperwork completed and witnessed by the facility’s own staff after her death was already scheduled she died by lethal injection without, her family says, speaking a word of final consent. A reconstruction.

*This account is based on the Stegemann family’s written public statement, published to Facebook in mid July 2026, which has drawn hundreds of thousands of interactions and constitutes the first public record of this case; on an 80 minute recorded interview I conducted on July 22, 2026, with Brigitte, GG’s granddaughter, namesake, caregiver of more than twelve years, and holder of her Power of Attorney; and on the provisions of Canada’s Criminal Code governing medical assistance in dying. The family has formally requested the underlying documents the death certificate, the eligibility assessments, the signed request and the identity of its witness, the medication administration records, and any waiver of final consent and none had been produced at the time of writing. Where the family’s two accounts differ on a detail, this report says so or follows their written statement. The practitioners involved are not named here, as the family chose not to name them publicly; they will be identified when records confirm their identities, and each will be given the opportunity to respond before that happens.*

On the morning of Friday, July 10, 2026, on the patio of a long term care facility “The Pearl, formally EJ Mcquigge Lodge” in Belleville, Ontario, an 83 year old woman named Brigitte Stegemann “GG” to the four generations of family who loved her sat in the fresh air in a wheelchair, eating a scoop of strawberry ice cream, her favourite, surrounded by her daughter and her granddaughter while they waited for her pastor to arrive. Her death by lethal injection, under Canada’s medical assistance in dying program, was scheduled for eleven o’clock.

Within ten minutes of the family settling outside, by their account, an administrator came out to the patio and insisted that GG be returned to her room immediately so that an intravenous line could be started nearly two hours ahead of the scheduled procedure, for reasons no one at the facility ever explained. Her granddaughter refused to cut the morning short, answered the administrator’s question of how much longer the family needed with “as long as it takes,” and finally had to ask her to leave the patio so the family could have privacy.

By early afternoon GG was dead. According to her family, who were in the room, she spent her final minutes silent, her hands clasped in a fixed prayer position, and never gave the explicit verbal confirmation that the medical team had assured them strictly and repeatedly, they say she would be required to provide before anything was administered. When she said nothing, her granddaughter smiled, flooded with relief, believing the silence meant the procedure could not lawfully proceed.

It proceeded.

Whether that was legal turns substantially on documents the family has demanded and not yet received. Whether it should ever have reached that morning is the larger question because the story of GG’s last ten days, as her family has now told it publicly and in detail to me, is a story about what happens to a hard of hearing, cognitively vulnerable woman who says no to the system offering her death, once her advocate leaves the country for ten days. More than a decade of advocacy, Brigitte Stegemann was, by her family’s written account, the second youngest of fourteen children, a devout Christian, and the mother of two Fritz and Karin. She had lived at the facility for two years. She was completely deaf in her left ear and had very limited hearing in her right; conversation required repetition and volume, and even then she often looked past visitors rather than engaging. The one voice that reliably reached her, family and staff alike had long observed, belonged to her granddaughter and namesake, Brigitte, who could be heard at a normal speaking tone even through a mask.

That granddaughter had devoted more than twelve years to GG’s care. She held legal Power of Attorney and served as the primary contact for all medical and personal decisions, and the facility used her in that role constantly calling every day or every other day, the family says, about medications, treatments, appointments, and the small logistics of daily living. That pattern of communication is worth fixing in mind, because the family’s central allegation is defined by the moment it stopped.

There is one more thing the family says about GG that no institution ever formally recorded: she had lived her whole life, in their observation, with an undiagnosed developmental or cognitive impairment one they suspected may have been on the autism spectrum that deeply affected her processing, comprehension, and decision making. It had never been clinically assessed. It will matter shortly.

Roughly five months before her death, GG was diagnosed with untreatable stage four stomach cancer and roughly two months before her death, a meeting was held at the facility to discuss the possibility of medical assistance in dying. The family’s written account of GG’s response is unambiguous: she clearly stated that she did not wish to pursue it, and explicitly said that it conflicted with her personal beliefs and her Christian faith.

She said no. What follows is what happened anyway.

Ten days

Shortly after that refusal, Brigitte and her husband, Robert, left on a planned ten day vacation. GG was not left alone, her daughter Karin and Karin’s husband, Dave, visited regularly throughout.

What they found on those visits alarmed them. GG was extremely weak and largely unresponsive waking briefly, sometimes only long enough to say her daughter’s name, then drifting off; eyes open but unfocused. Dave told the family that, based on what he was seeing, he believed GG was nearing the natural end of her life regardless of any medical intervention.

Meanwhile, the phone calls to Brigitte continued as they always had routine decisions, routine consultations, the familiar rhythm of a facility that contacted her about everything. What the facility did not tell her, on any of those calls, was that its staff were meeting privately with her grandmother twice, by a nurse’s later admission in front of the family to discuss the assisted death GG had declined two months earlier. Brigitte learned only that a further formal meeting about MAiD had been scheduled for after her return.

The family’s written statement calls this omission the first major warning sign, and it is difficult to argue with their framing: an institution that phoned the Power of Attorney about routine care matters found no occasion, in ten days of contact, to mention that it had reopened the question of her grandmother’s death behind her back.

The Monday turnaround, and a medication record that couldn’t explain it.

On Monday, July 6, the family attended the scheduled MAiD meeting expecting to speak with GG’s physician. What they encountered first was GG herself and she was, abruptly, a different woman. The grandmother who days earlier had been too weak to hold a conversation was sitting upright in bed, talking, smiling, laughing when Dave playfully pinched her toes and raising her fists as if to box with him.

The turnaround was so dramatic, and so inexplicable against what Karin and Dave had witnessed all week, that Brigitte grew suspicious enough to request GG’s Medication Administration Record that Wednesday and audit it herself. What she found deepened the problem rather than resolving it: the facility’s official records showed the exact same dosage administered every single day.

The family’s written statement lays out the dilemma that record creates, and I will state it as plainly as they did, because it is the analytical heart of this case. Either the facility’s paperwork did not accurately reflect what was actually being administered to GG or the records are accurate, her days of unresponsiveness and her Monday alertness occurred on identical medication, and the clinical team then chose that brief, anomalous window of lucidity to rush through a permanent capacity evaluation that bore no resemblance to her true everyday baseline. There is no third reading that flatters the institution. The original alleged MAR log, which the family has demanded, will determine which of the two it is.

The physician never arrived that Monday. While the family waited, an administrator and a registered nurse entered GG’s room and it was there, in GG’s presence, that the confrontation the family describes as a wall of defensiveness took place. Brigitte asked who had arranged the MAiD meeting; no clear answer was given. The nurse disclosed that staff had met privately with GG twice during the vacation. Brigitte asked, point blank, whether those conversations had been initiated by GG or by facility staff, and why they had been initiated at all given GG’s faith based refusal. The nurse an employee Brigitte, a near daily presence for years, had never once encountered grew agitated, and answered: “I’m advocating for her.” Pressed on who had raised the subject, she snapped: “I don’t need to tell you anything.” When Brigitte finally said, “I don’t understand where this attitude is coming from,” the nurse retorted, “Well, you have attitude,” and, after being told to leave and return only when composed, scoffed and stormed out the entire exchange unfolding where a frightened, dying woman could watch it.

Two details complete that scene. First, the family later learned from the home’s own manager that the nurse was barred from GG’s room immediately after the altercation which is to say, the administration itself judged her conduct indefensible, in the same week it relied on the process she had helped set in motion. Second, before the meeting dissolved, the administrator suggested that, “worst case,” she could sit in on the physician’s private meeting with GG. Brigitte refused: either the meeting was strictly doctor and patient, or Brigitte would be present too. Her stated fear, which the coming days would do nothing to quiet, was of her grandmother alone in a room, outnumbered by authority figures, feeling she had no choice but to agree to their terms.

Ninety minutes past the appointment time, the family was told the physician could not attend, and everything moved to Tuesday.

Six questions.

On Tuesday, July 7, the attending physician the family identifies her publicly only as Dr. K arrived to determine whether GG had the capacity to make an informed decision about MAiD, and began putting questions to her in the family’s presence.

What followed, in the words of the family’s written statement, was a deeply alarming farce. GG’s deafness forced Dr. K to repeat her questions several times, but the barrier ran far deeper than hearing. Asked whether she had any siblings, the second youngest of fourteen children answered that she had none. The family corrected the record. Asked whether any siblings were still alive, GG said no; the family intervened again some were living, and GG had spoken with one just the previous week. By this point GG was disoriented and distressed, crying, saying “I forgot about the grandkids” as she confused her living siblings with her great grandchildren. The family, by their account, had to correct the vast majority of the answers she gave.

Brigitte objected to the evaluation on the spot, asking Dr. K directly how a woman who could not accurately recount the most basic facts of her own family and who was actively breaking down in confusion in front of her could possibly be deemed capable of consenting to her own death.

The assessment carried forward anyway. Dr. K then explained the procedure to GG in terms the family recounts as: receiving medication, feeling peace, falling asleep with the explicit promise that she “would not lose control of her bowels.” The family’s written statement dwells on this framing, and rightly so. To a woman of GG’s generation, faith, and cognitive capacity, “medication” meant healing, care, relief; describing a lethal injection as medicine while soothing her specific, everyday fears of physical indignity did not inform her consent so much as engineer it. What the gentle framing omitted among other things is that the MAiD protocol includes a paralytic.

Then Dr. K instructed the family to leave the room. Brigitte asked to remain, citing more than a decade as GG’s advocate and her legal Power of Attorney. The request was flatly denied. The critical conversation occurred entirely in private, and when Dr. K emerged, she announced: “I have deemed her capable of making her own decisions.” GG, she said, had consented, and the procedure was scheduled for Friday, July 10.

The private meeting had been justified as necessary to rule out pressure or influence from the family. Brigitte answered that reasoning with the question this entire case keeps asking “Well, we are concerned about pressure and influence from the home. Would that not be a concern of yours as well?” Dr. K brushed it off if that was the family’s concern, they could take it up with the home. Why influence from the institution that had reopened MAiD with a woman who refused it, met with her privately while her advocate was away, and controlled her bed was not an automatic clinical concern while her family of decades was treated as the presumptive threat is a question the physician, by the family’s account, never engaged at all.

The legal effect of those few private minutes was total. Under the MAiD framework, a patient deemed capable in the moment speaks for herself; the finding instantly superseded GG’s Power of Attorney and stripped her designated advocate of standing. A determination the family regards as indefensible on its face rendered in an evaluation they measure in minutes, on a woman whose answers they had spent the morning correcting was, from that moment, the only voice the system recognized.

The paperwork came after, then there is the sequence the family’s statement calls the backwards timeline, and it may be the most legally consequential paragraph in their account.

A MAiD death is supposed to rest on a formal written request, signed by the patient and independently witnessed, with assessments and scheduling built on top of it. In GG’s case, by the family’s account, the death was scheduled on Tuesday, July 7 and it was only after that date was set that facility staff completed the official MAiD application and witnessed GG’s signature, privately, without informing the family, during a week in which Brigitte and Robert were at the facility visiting every single day. The family learned of it only because Brigitte asked. On Wednesday, in a conversation with the home’s manager, she inquired about the paperwork she assumed she would be involved in, and the manager admitted that she had personally filled out GG’s official MAiD application herself.

Consider what that means, if the records bear it out. The facility initiated the renewed MAiD discussions with a patient who had declined. The facility’s staff conducted the private meetings while the advocate was away. The facility’s manager completed the application. The facility’s personnel witnessed the signature. And the facility’s records will now be asked to explain a medication log that either misstates what GG was given or confirms that her capacity was assessed inside an unexplained anomaly. At every load bearing point where the law imagines independence, the same institution appears initiator, facilitator, scribe, and witness while the one genuinely independent party, a Power of Attorney of twelve years, was kept, in the family’s phrase, in the dark despite their constant physical presence at the home.

Canadian law, it should be said, permits more of this than most readers will assume. The 2021 amendments to the Criminal Code reduced the witnessing requirement from two independent witnesses to one and expressly allowed paid professional care providers to serve. An employee of the institution that controls the bed may lawfully witness the request that empties it. Whether every element of this particular sequence was lawful is a question for the documents. That the law was written to make most of it possible is not in dispute and is its own indictment.

“They’re going to kill me Friday?”

On Wednesday, July 8, before the family’s planned visit, the facility called Brigitte with news: the procedure was being moved up a full day, to Thursday, July 9, because the physician had an opening in her schedule. Staff had already gone directly to GG, the caller said, and GG had agreed.

Brigitte objected immediately and drove in. In a meeting with the home manager, she laid out the family’s position staff had gone around the advocate again, this time to change the date of a woman’s death for a doctor’s calendar, while the things GG had actually and consistently said mattered to her being surrounded by her family, having her pastor present were treated as secondary to scheduling. The program, Brigitte told the manager plainly, was being rammed down the family’s throats. The manager apologized for how things had been handled and asked what she could do to make the situation better. Brigitte’s answer, as the family recorded it: “The damage is already done, and you have taken an awful situation and made it even worse.”

The family’s opposition worked, to the extent anything did that week: the facility backed down, and Friday at 11:00 a.m. was maintained.

It was during the visit that followed that the conversation at the centre of this case took place. Brigitte sat with her grandmother and asked whether she was entirely certain she wanted to go through with this on Friday. In the recorded interview, she recounted the exchange to me word for word. GG said: “I’m gonna die on Friday.” Brigitte answered “You are they are going to *kill* you on Friday.” And her grandmother replied:

“They’re gonna kill me?”

GG wept for an extended period three quarters of an hour, by Brigitte’s recollection repeatedly saying that she had made a mistake. Brigitte comforted her and told her the truth, which was also the law if she had changed her mind, she had the absolute right to tell the medical team on Friday that she did not want to proceed.

That conversation took place one day after a physician deemed her capable of consenting to her death, and two days before that death was carried out. The next day, Thursday, the family kept MAiD out of the room entirely and simply spent hours with her and at the end of the visit, GG looked around the room she had lived in and remarked that it was lovely, and that when she moved, she would want a room like it.

July 10, the family arrived around nine on Friday morning and took GG out to the patio the wheelchair, the sunshine, the strawberry ice cream, the pastor on his way. The administrator’s push to start the IV nearly two hours early came within ten minutes, and was held off only by Brigitte’s refusal.

At approximately 10:20, they brought GG back to her room. The administrator began the IV insertion and to the family’s lasting distress asked Brigitte and Robert, who openly opposed the procedure, to assist by handing her medical supplies. When the rest of the family was called into the room moments later, they walked into what their statement describes without euphemism a significant, alarming amount of blood covering GG, the bedding, and the surrounding area more blood than Brigitte, in all her years managing her grandmother’s care, had ever seen result from a standard IV insertion.

The pastor prayed. GG closed her eyes and clasped her hands.

Then Dr. K arrived and attempted to speak with her. GG was silent, her hands fixed in prayer, and never gave Dr. K a verbal response of any kind. In the recorded interview, Brigitte recounted the physician’s words to her grandmother” Okay, Brigitte, I’m gonna give you your medicine”and what the physician said next, when no answer came:

“Okay, well, I’m just gonna get started then.”

The family had been assured, strictly and explicitly it is the reason, they say, that they did not attempt to physically halt the procedure that morning that GG would be required to give a final, explicit verbal confirmation immediately before the injection. They had been told by the medical team itself that only the patient could rescind consent, and that the last moment confirmation was the safeguard guaranteeing her that power. So when GG stayed silent, Brigitte felt relief wash over her and smiled at her husband, believing the mandatory safeguard had just held that silence, under the rule the team itself had stated, meant stop.

The team proceeded. As the medications were pushed, the family watched Dr. K encounter visible difficulty injecting one of the fluids through the line, pausing to exchange a look with the administrator that suggested a complication. A brief moment after the final medications went in, Dr. K confirmed that GG was gone.

The room fell silent. And in the days that followed through the removal of her belongings, the clearing of her room, the first stunned week of grief no one from the facility’s clinical team, by the family’s account, reached out to them at all.

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?

*** Requests for comment were made multiple times through phone and email request and neither Dr. K nor the nursing home chose to comment. We are waiting on the coroner report to release Dr. K’s full name, but we will be doing so in a piece once we confirm. ***

What the family is doing, and what happens next

The family is in the process of filing, the complaints this situation calls for: a police report identifying the location and personnel involved; a formal complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario noting the existence of that report; and a comprehensive demand for records the death certificate and its listed cause, both assessments, the signed request and its witness, the complete MAR log, and any waiver of final consent. They have been advised not to be surprised if the death certificate, when it arrives, attributes GG’s death to cancer rather than to the injection that ended her life; federal guidance to certifiers permits exactly that.

They have also been told the records will come slowly, and that they will be encouraged at every stage to let it go. Their public statement suggests how likely that is. “Grief does not erase these documented lapses in transparency,” the family wrote, “nor does it excuse a system that felt entirely rushed, defensive, and calculated. We will forever live with the painful uncertainty of how long GG might have lived comfortably had nature been allowed to take its course.”

I have reviewed the family’s full written statement, conducted its own recorded interview, and will follow the documentary record wherever it leads including to the names of the facility and every practitioner involved, each of whom will be offered the chance to respond before being identified.

GG asked to be kept comfortable, to be surrounded by her family, and to have her pastor at her side. She told the people offering her death that her faith said no. The record now being assembled will establish, step by step and paper by paper, how a system built on the word *choice* took her from that refusal to a scheduled appointment in nine weeks and why, when she met its final safeguard with silence, the silence wasn’t enough.

Similar topic:

Our families experience with Medical Aid in Dying (Read).

Federally funded podcast promotes euthanasia clinic.

Encouraging increased access to Euthanasia via alternative media.

Viviana Runstedler
Staff Writer, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Earlier this month, we reported about the podcast “Disrupting Death” which received $289,226 in Canadian government research grant funding to discuss Canadian experiences with Medical Assistance in Dying.

As per their website, their goal “is to provide insight and contribute to improving the implementation of accessible, person-centered MAiD for Canadians”. While the interviewees are not in all cases explicitly pro-euthanasia, the interviewers make it clear that they believe MAiD is healthcare and should be accessible to all Canadians.

The most recent episode, released on July 17, 2026, features the new Executive Director of MAiDHouse, Tamara MacIntyre. As we have previously reported, MAiDHouse is a euthanasia clinic which started in Toronto and has expanded to a location in Victoria, BC. They provide space for the purpose of euthanasia death as well as training and support to euthanasia providers. The interviewers refer to MAiDHouse as “an invaluable response and service” (episode time stamp 36:23). 

This episode was for all intents and purposes a promo for MAiDHouse; a one-sided conversation funded by our tax dollars via government research grant.

The following are key reflections from the episode. All time stamps noted are when the statement begins as streamed on the Spotify platform.

MacIntyre states:

“I had somebody who said to me that what they thought was going to be one of the darkest days of their life ended up being replaced with love and light, and that just removing the mystery changed her ability to be present with the experience. And I think that’s what people don’t understand is, that what people describe as the beauty of natural death, there is beauty in a MAiD death and your listeners would be familiar with that from so many subjective stories of how people have described it. And the opposition would position it as a facade that needed to be believed because it was otherwise.” (time stamp 12:30)

Here, MacIntyre paints that “opposition” (and we’re sure she would include us) as members of a ‘death illiterate’ society who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide because of inexperience with death or fear to discuss it. She brushes away individuals such as physicians and spiritual care providers who have accompanied many individuals in the dying process yet still oppose euthanasia, as well as those who have had a negative personal experience with euthanasia. She speaks as though all euthanasia deaths will be “love and light” and cites subjective stories, but ignores the subjective stories that exist in contradiction to that narrative.

MacIntyre further states:

“What I would say to you is that, specific to MAiD, there is bravery, there is curiosity, there is courage, there is human complexity that I think we often times don’t talk about.” (time stamp 15:30)

How logically backwards - to pair the oft-cited fear of being a burden as “bravery” and the choice to end one’s own life early as “curiosity” rather than the inquisitive desire to explore life’s potential, final natural moments.

However, MacIntyre also points out the weaknesses in our existing healthcare system that created the breeding grounds for our current MAiD landscape:

“People still think there’s a hospice bed for me when I need it or if I choose MAiD, there’ll just be a hospital bed for me. You know, they don’t realize that the way our healthcare system is built, that means they’d have to be checked in as a day patient and they would sit until there is space.” (time stamp 18:56)

It is well known that there is a severe lack of hospice and palliative, which has a negative impact on the trust Canadians have that their natural deaths will be properly managed. This along with ‘hallway healthcare’ was part of the conversation that led to legalization of euthanasia - decreasing the burden on an over-taxed system. MAiDHouse claims to be helping to solve the problem of space for dying patients but we suggest - are they just diverting funds towards themselves that should be invested into the expansion of hospice and palliative care?

MAiDHouse also positions themselves as a place for the vulnerable - those who don’t have a family or personal network to help them navigate the end of life process. MacIntyre talks about walking through the full range of end-of-life planning decisions from cremation to urn selection and more. This existential loneliness is a separate issue existing in society that is not going to be solved by euthanasia and instead we suggest MAiDHouse’s ‘support’ exasperates the issue. We MUST ensure people aren’t "choosing" euthanasia simply because they are alone or need help with end of life planning. This is clearly a way to prey on the vulnerable.

Finally, there was a discussion of transfers for the purpose of obtaining MAiD. This usually refers to being moved from a facility that does not provide MAiD to one that does. However, the conversation moved ahead in a surprisingly dark way:

“The complexity of deciding on time that they will be transported because they want the least amount of individuals to know. People who leave homes that they’ve lived in for a long time, that they know that they’ve not told any of their neighbours, they’ve not told anybody. They just need to disappear because they don’t want to be the rumour in their home environment.” (time stamp 27:23)

MacIntyre further states that planning “with those additional complexities in mind” is “work that we do on a regular basis.” (time stamp 28:17) This is heartbreaking. Is that really what Canadians are hoping for in their final days? Stigma. Fading away without a trace. Disappearing.

There is a human desire to be remembered after we are gone. The purpose of cultural norms around death such as visitations, funerals, and gravesites are to revisit and honour the life that was lived, yet MAiDHouse is facilitating the deaths shrouded in shame and emotional conflict. This is in stark contrast to final days honoured with visits from friends and family, recognizing that the moments are becoming ever fewer and to be savoured.

When asked for final thoughts on how she would like the conversation surrounding MAiD to be, MacIntyre instead took the opportunity to frame providers such as MAiDHouse and those who have chosen MAiD as the victims:

“I would just say the biggest piece I would ask is the level of compassion that it is not possible for you to know or understand what somebody’s circumstance is. And while you may find security in values that give you permission to judge another’s choice, just like somebody didn’t tell me what to wear when I got up this morning, somebody’s not going to tell me what my end of life looks like.” (time stamp 39:35)

As though fashion and end of life choices carry a similar ethical and moral weight. Yet the interviewer thought that was “a fabulous way to conclude our conversation” (time stamp 40:02) and thanked MAiDHouse for being part of the MAiD care landscape in Canada.

This is what the Canadian government is funding. Our tax dollars fund the killing of Canadians by doctors, and our research tax dollars fund these heavily biased conversations pushing for expansion of access to euthanasia.

We urge you to not become lethargic on this topic just because it is currently legal. Conversations such as those in this podcast will only gain more traction unless we do something about it. Speak to your members of parliament about these ongoing discrepancies and biases. Sign our petitions. Speak candidly to your friends and family who may be considering euthanasia. Direct those in your circles who may be less informed about end of life issues to reliable sites such as our website or our EPC blog. It is never too late to facilitate change for the better.

EPC intervention in euthanasia for mental illness court case.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) needs your financial support (Read).

The legal counsel for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), Hugh Scher, was in a Toronto court on July 21 / 22, 2026 representing EPC in the case concerning Claire Brosseau and Dying with Dignity. 

The Brosseau case is asking the court to legislate from the bench to permit euthanasia for mental illness alone in Canada.

Scher reported that:

Leave to intervene was granted to EPC by order of the court. We prepared a 10 page written legal argument, reviewed the file documents and prepared for oral arguments for July 21 / 22.

The judge hearing the motion was Justice Carissima Mathen. Curiously, she used to be head of litigation for LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. Her background is in constitutional litigation particularly with respect to women's rights.

... At the hearing, she seemed much more interested in taking charge of the application than limiting the scope of her review to the motion for a stay which was the matter properly before her.

Hugh Scher

Scher summarized the EPC position before the court:

In our oral submissions, we focussed on the core requirement of irremediability which was a core principle laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada Carter decision as a criteria to access an assisted death. ...We relied on the significant evidence that suggests that it is impossible to determine if a person with a mental illness only is irremediable.

It is also hard to determine prognosis given the significant changes that occur with mental illness that are often quite fluid. EPC urged the court against finding on the minimal record before it that a stay is appropriate.

We also suggested that the intention of this application was to avoid the change in direction of Parliament, effectively pitting the court against Parliament. ...Parliament has recently, through its parliamentary committee (AMAD) on euthanasia report indicated a desire to be cautious and to defer any further action on euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Scher completed his report by stating:

It remains to be determined what the court will do, particularly given the background of the judge and her possible desire to establish some kind of precendent. That said, the law is currently against granting a stay to grant Brosseau death based on mental illness alone.

EPC has intervened in this case in an attempt to prevent the court from expanding euthanasia by legislating from the bench to allow euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Previous articles about the Brosseau case:

• (EPC) filed to intervene in Euthanasia for mental illness court case (Read). 
• Canadian actress seeking euthanasia for mental illness (Read)