June 6, 2026
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
How do societies change?
That question was at the heart of a fascinating journalist briefing Cardus hosted this week. The topic was Canada's euthanasia regime, and the discussion centred on a provocative question: What role has the media played in euthanasia’s shift from “an option of last resort” to something increasingly seen as normal?
The ninety-minute conversation featured Globe and Mail editor Patrick Brethour, L'actualité's Marie-Claude Lortie, and Jen Gerson of The Line. Much of the discussion focused on the media's role in shaping public understanding. Language, they noted, matters. What was once commonly discussed as euthanasia or mercy killing gradually became assisted suicide and eventually MAiD—"Medical Assistance in Dying". Our panellists discussed the media’s obligation to inform citizens about what their institutions are saying and doing, as well as its challenge function: holding institutional leaders to account and curating all sides of the debate.
Euthanasia is certainly a case study in how the language we use to describe it has morphed to diminish rather than spark discussion. What has always been and remains a sombre subject—death—has been sidestepped into a conversation of rights, medicine, and autonomy. But as I listened, I was struck by a larger point. The media hasn’t done this alone. A few weeks ago, I mused about four theories of social change, concluding that lasting change comes “when multiple parts of a society move in the same direction.” Interestingly, it is more often the creative minorities within institutions rather than mass movements which prompt such change. The story of Canada’s euthanasia regime illustrates exactly this dynamic, and it has lessons for anyone trying to shape culture. Listening this week, I reflected that perhaps I should use Canada's euthanasia debate the next time I make that argument.
Commentators often trace the story of euthanasia in Canada to the Supreme Court of Canada's 2015 Carter decision, which ruled that criminal prohibitions on assisted death violated Charter rights. Parliament responded with legislation in 2016, and since then, MAiD has become an established part of Canada's healthcare landscape. Yet by the time the Court ruled, advocates had already laid much of the groundwork.
Language tells part of that story.
In a Policy Options article several years ago, I noted that the Supreme Court's 1993 Rodriguez decision contained 299 references to suicide, while the 2015 Carter decision contained only 45 similar references. Rights, dignity, and medical assistance had largely displaced suicide as the dominant frame.
Dying With Dignity is usually identified as the advocacy group at the center of this movement. They welcomed this shift in language, arguing at the time that suicide was associated with hopelessness while medically assisted dying reflected hope and autonomy. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that assessment, the transformation illustrates how social change often begins by changing the language through which a society understands a problem.
Over the following two decades, the question shifted from whether ending life could ever be justified to one of autonomy, and the extent to which Canadians are entitled to state-assisted death. That language sounds stark, but buried under the debates about medical system readiness, the alleviation of suffering, the role of conscience and the reality that there are inequalities in one’s physical inability to commit suicide, it is the question of public obligation to assist someone in their desired suicide that is the question ultimately at stake.
Neither this stark language nor the details of complex legal arguments, difficult ethical cases, or parliamentary committee reports are the frame in which most people assess the question. They dutifully try to listen, but they reframe the details of the debate in their minds into intuitive moral commitments and categories. Rights are good. Compassion is good. Life is valuable. Suffering is tragic. Burdens should be relieved. Depending on how they fit into the debate, the mental boxes they read into are likely how they end up reaching their conclusions.
Those advocating expanded access to MAiD often frame the issue in terms of autonomy, choice, and individual rights. Those opposed tend to frame it in terms of vulnerability, social obligation, and the intrinsic value of human life. Both sides appeal to compassion. Both claim to be protecting the vulnerable.
When euthanasia was legalized following Carter, most Canadians understood the issue through the lens of terminal illness and unbearable suffering. The implicit question was simple: Should a dying person be forced to endure intolerable pain? Suicide has always been an option for some, and it is beyond the reach of the law, but for those incapable of carrying out that plan themselves, should the state help them?
That conversation has changed. There is no longer any objective test for what constitutes suffering, whether alternatives to that suffering are available, or whether the patient even welcomes, let alone accepts, the doctor’s best advice. The patient’s desires have displaced the doctor’s expertise—the profession has been reduced from trusted counsellor to service provider, facilitating requests whether or not they are for the patient’s genuine good.
The current debate over extending MAiD to those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness (which the law, as presently enacted, will allow as of March 2027) illustrates the challenge.
The federal government has already delayed implementation twice because of concerns about readiness among healthcare systems and practitioners. Polling released this week found that while support for MAiD remains high, 56 percent of Canadians were unaware that those suffering solely from mental illness could become eligible as early as March 2027.
However, the medical profession remains divided. While a few prominent physicians have become outspoken advocates for MAiD expansion, the perception of a broad professional consensus mistakes the reality. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health has raised concerns about implementation standards. Suicide prevention experts have observed that aspects of the public discussion around MAiD can conflict with traditional approaches to suicide prevention. Testimony before the Parliamentary committee has made it overwhelmingly clear that there is no medical consensus. In most other circumstances, a doctor who prescribes a treatment unsupported by solid medical evidence is liable for malpractice. Now, some urge Parliament to proceed with legislation requiring physicians who object to at least refer patients to a willing colleague.
The result of this—even before MAiD for mental illness has been implemented—is telling. Health Canada data indicate that 89 practitioners were responsible for more than 5,300 MAiD deaths in 2023—roughly 35 percent of all cases. Whatever one thinks of MAiD, its provision is not evenly distributed across the medical profession but is concentrated among a relatively small number of highly active practitioners. That does not prove anything in itself but is consistent with the observation of some that there are some “pushing an agenda.”
Nor are institutional debates settled.
Earlier this year, controversy erupted when Ontario changed the mandate and selection criteria for its MAiD Death Review Committee. Critics argued that the changes seemed intended to push out those who had raised concerns about MAiD, including some of the committee's most prominent voices. Whether that criticism is fair or not, the episode illustrates that important debates about safeguards, oversight, and vulnerability continue beneath the surface of public opinion.
Parliament is now awaiting the report of the committee studying MAiD and mental illness, expected before the House rises on June 19. The government has promised legislation after receiving the report. Most observers expect another delay because concerns about readiness remain unresolved.
Whatever one thinks of Dying With Dignity Canada and its goals, no one can deny its effectiveness. Over decades, it pursued a remarkably disciplined strategy. It advanced sympathetic cases, engaged with professional associations, participated in litigation, influenced public debate, and consistently framed the issue in terms of rights and dignity. It got sympathizers appointed to key positions and skillfully reshaped the public narrative around a more favourable framing to achieve its aims.
The lesson extends far beyond euthanasia.
We often hear that politics is downstream from culture. The MAiD story provides a powerful illustration. Social change rarely begins in legislatures. Courts redefine questions. Professional associations establish new norms. Universities train future leaders. Media narratives shape public imagination. Advocacy organizations influence institutional culture. By the time Parliament debates it, much of the battle has already been fought elsewhere.
Major cultural shifts often appear sudden, but they rarely are. The visible political decision is usually the final stage of a much longer process. The groundwork was laid years earlier through incremental changes in language, law, professional standards, and public assumptions.
Christians should pay particular attention to this lesson.
Too often, Christians reduce political engagement to elections, policy campaigns, or public statements. Yet lasting influence depends upon the slower work of building institutions, serving neighbours, caring for vulnerable people, and cultivating communities that embody a compelling vision of human flourishing.
The MAiD debate ultimately reflects competing understandings of dignity. For some, dignity is rooted primarily in autonomy and self-determination. For others, dignity is rooted in the inherent worth of every human person, regardless of suffering, dependence, or perceived burden.
My own sympathies are clear. Weakness, dependence, and the need for others do not diminish human dignity. Our value does not rise and fall with our autonomy. Suffering, the need for care, or becoming a burden to those who love us—none of these lessens a person’s worth. My nephew living with Down syndrome has as much dignity as a Nobel Prize winner, and we ignore the important lessons that engagement with each offers at our peril.
Whether one views Canada's euthanasia regime as a triumph of compassion or a tragic mistake, it offers a powerful lesson: society is rarely transformed at the ballot box. Not to say the ballot box doesn’t matter, but on its own, it is practically impotent. The long patient work of shaping institutions, cultivating leaders, influencing culture, and changing how people understand the world—that is what transforms society.
Politics matters. But politics is usually the last chapter, not the first.
WHAT I’M READING
Secular Stagnation
Political debate this week focused on the extent to which a “technical recession” was a real recession and the extent to which Canadian politicians should shoulder the blame. Graeme Gordon’s essay, which highlights how a longer-term view frames the issue in a different light, is worth a read in this context. It cites a Waterloo economics professor: “A recession would be much less to worry about, because recession implies it’s transitory… Secular stagnation is kind of the opposite of cyclical [where] there’s something built into the economy right now that leads to these very low growth rates.” The debate is really whether recession is a proper word, as what is occurring “is not a cyclical dip but a slow, secular deterioration stretching back years.”
Good Marriage Benefits
A Washington Post article this week reported on research that concludes “married people do tend to live longer and spend more years healthy on average.” While specific data is cited for heart disease, mental health and cancer, it is clear that it is a healthy marriage with positive relationships that is the key variable here, and that a conflict marriage may have some of the opposite effects. The findings are similar to those in one of the first studies Cardus commissioned when we launched our family program in 2016, which examined more than 50 published empirical studies in medical journals and concluded that marriage is good for your health.
Pacing AI
Anthropic LLC, the San Francisco artificial intelligence company that created Claude, filed its first documents as part of the process to become a public company with an IPO offering this week. They also issued a paper warning of the social consequences of AI and cautioning that care needs to be taken regarding the pace in which AI capacities are publicly released. “We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology.”
Quebec Conservatism
My Cardus colleague Étienne-Alexandre Beauregard—a former speechwriter for a Quebec premier—helpfully parsed Quebec conservatism this week, highlighting how it has a different expression there than in the rest of Canada. “To understand Quebec politics, one must first understand that, historically, it has been divided not along the lines of economic Left and Right, but rather between nationalists and federalists,” he writes. He compares the shift towards a more cultural rather than primarily economic conservatism in the rest of Canada, concluding, “These recent ideological developments should also shift the conversation about Quebec within the conservative movement, where it is too often portrayed as a minority that needs to be accommodated rather than as the bearer of a different vision of conservatism, one focused primarily on culture, rootedness, and provincial autonomy.”
MEANINGFUL METRICS
Few would argue with the theory of work-life balance, recognizing the benefits of ensuring that the non-paid work parts of our lives, family and health, as well as rest and leisure, all receive their appropriate share of the 168 hours in the 52 weeks we are given to steward each year. Translating the theory into practice can be a challenge. The Globe and Mail feature on Tuesday provided various interesting data points regarding how taking time off translates into social pressures in the workplace and among peers. Not that there is much new about the health and relationship risks that come with neglecting a balanced approach to life, but there are significant workplace effects also to keep in mind. “There are costs to this accelerating hamster wheel. Not taking time off to rest and recover fast-tracks burnout, erodes productivity and diminishes our quality of work, thought and decision-making, according to those studying workplace mental health. Worldwide, 81 per cent of workers now feel they are at risk of burnout, a jump from 63 per cent in 2019, according to Mercer’s 2026 Global Talent Trends report.”
TAKE IT TO-GO
The Cardus lunch table has been my wordplay inspiration of late, despite some of my colleagues groaning at my dad jokes. I was encouraged by my fellow dad, Joel, who challenged that critique this week, wondering why it was socially expected to be affirming of almost every other intervention with at least a “that’s interesting” comeback, but groaning at pun-play was socially acceptable. But I digress.
What actually got my attention was the shawarma poutine that a few people tried. They’d ordered shawarma from this place before, but then it was served on a pita, and I guess they did not want to repeata-pita this time. It's not that I’m going to pan their selections, and I’m not enough of a fan to make shwarma norma. Still, if that is what it takes for the curious Cardus camaraderie lunch tradition to keep hummusing along, I’m all in.
That’s it for another week. I trust the splendour of the sunshine is making the days pleasant as it did in Ottawa and Hamilton, between which I divided my week. Looking forward to being back in your inbox next Saturday morning.