Tuesday, November 10, 2026
When the State wants you dead
“Do you know that you’re going to die on Friday?” Brigitte Kranendonk asked her grandmother.
The 83-year-old woman began to cry. “I’ve made a mistake,” Brigitte Stegemann told her granddaughter, according to Kranendonk. She wept for nearly an hour.
This is not compassion if the person about to die cannot make herself understood. It is the machinery of death moving past the one vulnerable human being whose wishes should govern it.
Two days later, on July 10, Stegemann was dead. A physician had administered a lethal injection under Canada’s medical assistance in dying program. The question her family wants answered is as elementary as it is horrifying: Did she understand what was being done to her, and did she freely consent?
The details come from Kranendonk’s account of her grandmother’s final days. They demand serious scrutiny, not a soothing recital of the word “choice.”
Stegemann was a devout Christian with stage 4 stomach cancer. She had lived for about 18 months at a long-term care home in Cannifton, Ontario. She was hard of hearing, German was her first language, and her family says her understanding and memory were impaired. Kranendonk had helped care for her for 12 years and held her power of attorney for six.
According to her family, Stegemann had previously rejected an assisted death because it violated her faith. Yet while Kranendonk was away on a 10-day trip, staff arranged a MAID assessment. The granddaughter says she was told about the process only after it was under way. She had received routine updates about a fall and her grandmother’s need for a wheelchair, but nothing suggesting that death was now imminent.
When Kranendonk returned, she said, her grandmother was still eating, talking, and joking. At a subsequent eligibility assessment, Kranendonk says, the physician spoke of “medicine” and feeling “at peace,” without plainly explaining that the procedure would end Stegemann’s life.
“She doesn’t understand what you’re saying,” Kranendonk protested.
During questioning about her family, Stegemann gave answers her granddaughter knew were wrong. She said she had no living siblings, though two survived. Kranendonk was then asked to leave. Shortly afterward, she says, the physician announced that Stegemann had been deemed eligible for MAID.
On Wednesday, July 8, Kranendonk asked to see the paperwork authorizing her grandmother’s death. She was told Stegemann had signed it the previous day. Kranendonk says she has never seen the documents and does not know who witnessed the signature or how the request was explained. That was when she asked her grandmother whether she knew she would die Friday.
“I’ve made a mistake.”
RELATED:Canada kills 83-year-old Christian grandmother without consent, family claims — outrage ensuesROMAIN PERROCHEAU / AFP via Getty Images
Kranendonk told her she could refuse. The following day, they ate ice cream, shared memories, and danced to a traditional German polka. “We had the best day,” the granddaughter recalled. Such ordinary tenderness makes what followed almost unbearable to read.
On Friday morning, according to Kranendonk, a nurse struggled repeatedly to insert an intravenous line, leaving her grandmother bleeding. When the doctor arrived, she asked whether it was all right to give Stegemann “medicine.”
“My Oma is not moving. She doesn’t open her eyes. She doesn’t nod. She doesn’t say anything,” Kranendonk recalled. The doctor, she says, responded: “OK, well, I’m going to proceed.”
Stegemann was pronounced dead within minutes, her hands clasped in prayer.
The care home and practitioners have not publicly answered these allegations in detail. They reportedly maintain that Stegemann legally consented. No wrongdoing has been established. But Belleville police confirmed in September that the death was under investigation, and the family has sought a review by Ontario’s chief coroner.
Canadian law requires a voluntary, informed request and independent assessments. Ordinarily, it also requires express consent immediately before death. A narrow exceptionpermits a written waiver of final consent when specific conditions are met. Even that waiver cannot overcome a patient’s demonstrated refusal or resistance.
The unresolved questions are therefore specific and grave. What did Stegemann sign, and when? Could she understand its meaning? Was there a valid waiver? Did she withdraw consent or express resistance? The documents and findings must answer them. Her granddaughter’s account cannot by itself establish a crime. It is more than enough to demand an investigation.
Defenders of euthanasia invoke “autonomy.” But autonomy requires comprehension, freedom from pressure, and a choice that belongs to the patient. It cannot be supplied by a doctor’s euphemism, a form no family member has seen, or silence interpreted as permission.
This is not compassion if the person about to die cannot make herself understood. It is the machinery of death moving past the one vulnerable human being whose wishes should govern it.
The burden belongs to those who ended Brigitte Stegemann’s life: Show that she understood. Show that she chose. Until then, do not ask her family to call it mercy.
Thursday, November 5, 2026
Dear readers
After twenty years and tens of thousands of posts, I have decided to make my comments occasional rather than daily.
Yes, it's the result of the recent election results.
I fear America has slipped into the dark hands of criminals and takers. So for my own mental health I cannot bear to chronicle the decline.
May G-d have mercy on us all.
jerry
Wednesday, November 4, 2026
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
