The following story was shared with permission.
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.
Background
 |
| Brigitte from earlier years. |
Brigitte Stegemann ("GG") passed away through the MAID program on Friday, July 10, 2026.
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.
Approximately five months before her death, GG was diagnosed with untreatable Stage IV stomach cancer. For the last two years of her life, she resided at the long-term care facility.
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.
Approximately two months before GG's death, a meeting was held to discuss the possibility of MAID. At that time, GG clearly stated that she did not wish to pursue it. As a devout Christian, she explicitly expressed that MAID conflicted with her personal beliefs and faith.
Shortly afterward, Brigitte and her husband, Robert, left on a planned vacation. During their 10-day absence, Karin and her husband, Dave, visited GG regularly to ensure she was not alone.
Although Brigitte continued receiving frequent phone calls from the care home about routine decisions while she was away, she was never informed that additional discussions regarding MAID were taking place privately with GG. Instead, she was only advised that another formal meeting concerning MAID had been scheduled for after her return.
This blatant omission was the first major warning sign for our family. Given Brigitte's long-standing role as GG's advocate and Power of Attorney, it is indefensible that discussions about such a life-altering decision occurred entirely behind her back during that brief 10-day window, despite the home's daily communication with her on far less significant matters.
The MAID Meetings
During the final five days before Brigitte and Robert returned from vacation, Karin and Dave continued visiting GG regularly at the care home.
During those visits, they found her to be extremely weak and largely unresponsive. She would briefly awaken, sometimes only long enough to say her daughter's name, before drifting back to sleep. Because GG was completely deaf in her left ear and had very limited hearing in her right, communication was extremely difficult. Although her eyes were often open, she appeared to be looking past visitors rather than engaging in conversation. Dave shared his concerns with the rest of the family; based on what he had witnessed, he believed GG was nearing the natural end of her life regardless of medical intervention.
Monday, July 6, 2026
Our family attended the scheduled MAID meeting expecting to discuss the process with GG's physician.
To our surprise, GG appeared dramatically different from how she had only days earlier. She was sitting upright in bed, talking, smiling, and interacting. When Dave playfully pinched her toes, she laughed and raised her hands as though she wanted to box with him. Seeing such a sudden, dramatic improvement left us confused and raised serious questions about why she had appeared so heavily sedated during the previous several days.
Driven by deep suspicion over this inexplicable turnaround, Brigitte later requested GG’s Medication Administration Record (MAR) log on Wednesday to audit her chemical baseline. Surprisingly, the facility’s official records reflected that the exact same dosage of medication had been administered every single day. This left our family with a profound contradiction: either the home's paperwork did not accurately reflect what was actually being injected into her system, or the clinical team had actively exploited a brief, completely anomalous window of temporary alertness to rush through a permanent evaluation that entirely misrepresented GG's true, unresponsive everyday baseline.
Before the physician arrived, an administrator and a registered nurse from the facility entered the room and advised us that the doctor was running behind schedule.
During this conversation, which took place entirely inside GG's room in her immediate presence, Brigitte asked who had arranged the MAID meeting. No clear answer was ever given. Instead, the family was met with an immediate wall of defensiveness, specifically from the registered nurse. The nurse informed the family that staff had met privately with GG on two occasions during Brigitte's 10-day vacation to discuss MAID.
Brigitte asked why those discussions had been initiated when GG had previously declined MAID due to her Christian beliefs. She asked point-blank whether these conversations were initiated by GG herself or by the facility staff.
The registered nurse became physically agitated and defensive, wagging her head back and forth as she spoke directly to Brigitte, stating, "I'm advocating for her."
When Brigitte pushed further to find out exactly who brought up the conversation about MAID, the nurse snapped, "I don't need to tell you anything."
Brigitte countered that she had served as GG's advocate for over a decade, held Power of Attorney, and visited consistently, noting that she had never once encountered this particular nurse during her frequent visits. As the interaction grew increasingly hostile, Brigitte finally stated, "I don't understand where this attitude is coming from."
The nurse snapped back, "Well, you have attitude." At that point, Brigitte told the nurse she needed to leave the room and return only when she was composed. The nurse scoffed and stormed out.
As family members preparing to discuss the impending death of our grandmother, we found this volatile, unprofessional behaviour from a staff member completely unacceptable, particularly because this aggressive argument was brought directly into GG's room where she could see and hear the distress it was causing.
After the nurse left, the administrator remained. Brigitte explained that our family did not support MAID in GG's circumstances and expressed serious concerns that GG was not mentally capable of making such a significant decision independently. GG had lived for many years with what our family knew to be a lifelong, undiagnosed developmental or cognitive disability (which we suspected may have been on the autism spectrum), which deeply affected her processing, understanding, and decision-making.
The administrator then explained that the doctor would eventually need to be in the room completely private with GG. The administrator added, "Worst case, I can be in the room with her and the doctor." Brigitte immediately spoke up and refused, stating that the meeting should either be strictly between the doctor and GG, or, if any outside staff member was permitted to be present, Brigitte would be in the room as well. Brigitte was deeply concerned that GG would feel intensely pressured, overwhelmed, and cornered if she were outnumbered by authority figures from the facility, ultimately feeling as though she had no choice but to agree to their terms.
After waiting approximately ninety minutes, the administrator informed us that the physician could no longer attend due to an unexpected conflict, and the meeting was rescheduled for the following day.
Tuesday, July 7, 2026
The following day, we returned for the rescheduled meeting with the attending physician, Dr. K.
Dr. K explained that she needed to determine whether GG possessed the capacity to make an informed decision regarding MAID. She began asking GG a series of questions in our presence.
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.
Dr. K noted that she was required to meet in private because she wanted to ensure there was no underlying pressure or influence from the family. Brigitte challenged this reasoning directly, saying, "Well, we are concerned about pressure and influence from the home. Would that not be a concern of yours as well?"
Dr. K brushed the question off, replying that if that was the family's concern, they would have to take it up directly with the home. Brigitte asked why potential outside influence from the facility wouldn't be an automatic clinical concern for the doctor, rather than only suspiciousness directed at the family.
Our family left shocked and deeply distressed.
The Backwards Paperwork Timeline
What followed this meeting amplified our family's shock and exposed a staggering procedural failure. Legally and structurally, the formal written application for MAID must be signed by the patient and independently witnessed before final clinical assessments take place and a date for death is set.
Yet, in GG's case, the timeline was completely inverted. The procedure was scheduled on Tuesday, July 7th. It was only after this date had already been set—and despite the fact that Brigitte and Robert were at the facility visiting GG every single day—that the administration and staff at the care home took it upon themselves to fill out the official MAID paperwork and witness the signature for GG in secret.
They did not inform Brigitte that they were generating these legal documents after the fact, nor did they mention that they were actively witnessing them. They completely bypassed the family, executing the legal requests in the shadows despite our constant physical presence at the home. By declaring GG "capable" in that private meeting, the medical team utilized a highly controversial legal loophole within the MAID framework: if a clinician deems a patient mentally capable at the exact moment of an assessment, the patient's immediate voice legally supersedes any pre-existing Power of Attorney or previous directives. The facility used Dr. K's deeply flawed, fifteen-minute evaluation to effectively strip Brigitte of her legal standing as advocate, finalizing the paperwork in the shadows despite our constant physical presence at the home.
The Final Days
Following the July 7 meeting, our family struggled immensely to come to terms with what was unfolding.
On Wednesday, July 8, before the family went to visit GG, Brigitte received a phone call from the facility advising her that the MAID procedure was being moved ahead by a full day to Thursday, July 9, simply because the physician had an opening in her schedule.
Brigitte immediately objected over the phone and stated she was on her way to the facility immediately to discuss the matter. The home claimed that GG had already agreed to move the date.
When Brigitte and Robert arrived for their three-hour visit, Brigitte met with the home manager. She expressed how deeply perplexed she was that staff had gone directly to GG to alter the date of her death without consulting her advocate, knowing how many moving parts and final arrangements were still being sorted out. Brigitte stated plainly that the MAID program was being forcefully rammed down the family's throats, while the items of actual importance to GG were being brushed aside. Specifically, GG had consistently and strongly expressed that she wanted to be surrounded by her family during her final moments and desperately wanted her pastor to be present—wishes the care home treated as secondary to the physician's schedule.
It was during this exact conversation that the home manager admitted to Brigitte that she herself had personally filled out GG's official MAID application paperwork.
The home manager apologized directly to Brigitte for how things had been handled and asked what she could do to make the situation better. Brigitte looked her in the eye and responded plainly, "The damage is already done, and you have taken an awful situation and made it even worse." During this meeting, the manager also confirmed that the hostile registered nurse from Monday's incident had already been officially barred from entering GG's room immediately following the altercation, proving the administration knew the behaviour was entirely indefensible.
During the visit that followed, Brigitte sat with her grandmother and asked if she was entirely certain she wanted to go through with this on Friday.
GG appeared confused and visibly distressed. She responded with words to the effect of, "I'm going to die Friday? They're going to kill me Friday?" She wept for an extended period, repeatedly stating that she had made a mistake. Brigitte comforted her and reassured her that if she had changed her mind, she had the absolute right to tell the medical team on Friday that she did not want to proceed.
Because of the family’s strong opposition and immediate intervention, the facility backed down from moving the timeline, and the original date of Friday, July 10, at 11:00 a.m. was maintained.
Friday, July 10, 2026
Our family arrived at the care home at approximately 9:00 a.m. Rather than remaining inside the clinical walls, Karin and Brigitte helped GG into a wheelchair and brought her out to the patio so she could enjoy the fresh air, have a scoop of Strawberry Ice Cream (her favourite) and spend her final morning outdoors with the people she loved.
Within ten minutes, an administrator came outside and insisted that GG return to her room immediately so an intravenous (IV) line could be started. Brigitte firmly responded that the family was spending precious time together and that they would return when they were ready.
The administrator asked how long that would be. Brigitte replied, "As long as it takes." Brigitte then had to gently but firmly tell the administrator to leave the patio, stating that the family required privacy to spend this time together and that her presence was not needed.
The family was deeply perplexed and unsettled by the facility's aggressive rush, given that the MAID procedure was explicitly scheduled for 11:00 a.m. No clinical explanation was ever provided as to why the staff insisted on inserting the IV nearly two hours ahead of schedule, unnecessarily cutting short the family's final, peaceful moments together on the patio.
A short time later, GG's pastor joined the family on the patio. He prayed with us, spoke gently with GG, and provided the spiritual comfort she desperately needed.
At approximately 10:20 a.m., we returned GG to her room. The Administrator entered to begin the IV insertion. Distressingly, the Administrator asked Brigitte and Robert to physically assist her by handing her medical supplies. Given that the family was openly opposed to the procedure, being asked to actively participate in the preparation was insensitive and deeply upsetting.
Moments later, the entire family was called into the room. Upon entering, they were met with a shocking sight. There was a significant, alarming amount of blood covering GG, the bedding, and the surrounding area—the most blood Brigitte had ever seen resulting from a standard IV insertion in all her years of managing her grandmother's care.
Shortly afterward, Dr. K arrived. She attempted to speak with GG. By this point, GG was silent, her hands tightly clasped together in a fixed prayer position. GG never provided a verbal response to Dr. K.
Our family had been strictly assured that GG would be asked for a final, explicit verbal confirmation on the day of the procedure to ensure she still wished to proceed. When GG remained completely silent and gave no response, Brigitte felt a sudden wave of relief and a big smile came over her face, believing that the procedure would finally be halted because the strict requirement for final consent had not been met. Tragically, we were left alarmed and horrified when the clinical team completely ignored her silence and carried the procedure forward regardless.
As the medications were administered, we observed Dr. K encounter visible difficulty injecting one of the fluids through the IV line. She paused and exchanged a look with the administrator that strongly suggested a complication was occurring.
After the final medications were pushed, only a brief moment passed before Dr. K confirmed that GG was gone. The room fell completely silent. Our family said our final goodbyes to the matriarch we had protected, loved, and fought for over so many years.
Our Concerns and Our Demand for Accountability
What happened to Brigitte "GG" Stegemann was a systemic failure driven by clinical arrogance, a total lack of transparency, and a blatant disregard for the safeguards meant to protect vulnerable patients.
One of our greatest ethical concerns is that GG had explicitly declined MAID, stating it violated her Christian faith. Once a vulnerable patient explicitly declines this path, the facility should never have targeted her for re-evaluation behind closed doors while her primary advocate was away—especially when the facility had no trouble contacting Brigitte daily for minor, routine care decisions.
We are deeply alarmed by the absolute lack of transparency and independent oversight regarding the application process. The fact that the facility's internal staff took it upon themselves to fill out the official MAID paperwork and witness the signature themselves—completely bypassing Brigitte and Robert while they were visiting the care home every single day, and doing so after the procedure had already been scheduled—represents a profound violation of trust and a glaring conflict of interest. The safeguards built into the MAID program are legally mandated to protect vulnerable individuals from outside pressure. Instead, the facility acted as the initiator, the facilitator, and the witness to the legal request, intentionally keeping her designated Power of Attorney in the dark.
We also remain appalled by the assessment of GG's decision-making capacity. GG lived with a lifelong, apparent cognitive impairment. During a formal capacity assessment, the family had to correct the vast majority of her answers, including her inability to identify how many siblings she had or how many were still living. These glaring factual errors, her visible generational confusion and breakdown, and the family's immediate, vocal objections should have halted the process immediately for a comprehensive, independent psychological evaluation.
Furthermore, excluding a long-time advocate from the room during the final assessment, failing to halt the process when the patient expressed agonizing second thoughts and confusion days prior, and proceeding on the final morning without an audible, clear verbal consent from the patient are actions that defy the law.
An outside reader might wonder why our family did not legally halt the procedure that Friday morning. The answer is simple: the medical team had explicitly instructed us that only the patient has the right to rescind consent once deemed capable, but they strictly promised us that GG would be required to give an explicit, final verbal confirmation right before the injection was administered. We trusted that this mandatory legal safeguard would protect her. We never could have anticipated that when she remained entirely silent, the clinical team would simply ignore the law and push the medication anyway.
The events of GG's final morning—being forced to assist with the medical preparation, witnessing a messy and bloody IV complication, and watching the procedure continue while GG sat silently in a prayer position—have left a lasting trauma on our family.
Grief does not erase these documented lapses in transparency, 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.
We share this account in loving memory of Brigitte "GG" Stegemann. We hope her story serves as a warning and an urgent call for greater clinical transparency, mandatory family inclusion for cognitively vulnerable patients, and strict legal accountability for facilities that operate outside the law.
Submitted in memory of GG by her family
