Discussions

the woman stopped her mother's medical care because she believed in alternative forms of therapy.  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/brandon-woman-charged-mothers-death-1.3659703

Not enough info, I mean failing to provide necessities to me is food, water and shelter. Many people try alternative forms, and add to that if someone believes they are helping it's hard to really judge. I see these decisions go both ways every day. Very unfortunate situation but one that happens more than people know.

I think this fall in the same category as the parents of the boy that died of meningitis. (And then tried to blame the ambulance)  
 
Other alternatives are fine IN COMBINATION with modern medicine. But has no proof of curing diseases alone.

batoochie said "I think this fall in the same category as the parents of the boy that died of meningitis. (And then tried to blame the ambulance)     Other alternatives are fine IN COMBINATION with modern medicine. But has no proof of curing diseases alone. "

are you talking about? The Stars ambulance?

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/jury-trial-truehope-toddler-dies-trial-underway-1.3479460

RainaRo said "Not enough info, I mean failing to provide necessities to me is food, water and shelter. Many people try alternative forms, and add to that if someone believes they are helping it's hard to really judge. I see these decisions go both ways every day. Very unfortunate situation but one that happens more than people know. "

while i agree food, water and shelter are the basics withholding medical care that a reasonable person would know is essential to life is also considered necessary to life, like the Alberta meningitis case, but this article really doesnt say wht the woman failed to provide so not really much to say on the topic  
 
I do imagine that it wasnt a simple case o wanting to let mom die at home in peace, as that is usually understood, im thinking the woman had to be suffering for a while for them to lay charges but none of us really know what happened in this case

There aren't enough details to render judgement, but it does pose questions.  
 
For example, was it only the medical treatment that was witheld? Are we obligated to accept medical treatment (either ourselves or on behalf of someone over whom we have responsibility)?  
 
Was the deceased mentally capable? Was the daughter trustee/guardian? Did the deceased request treatment be restarted but her requests were ignored?  
 
These are important questions because of the new laws in place as of June surrounding euthanasia. There are very specific, narrow circumstances where someone can request death right now, but challenges are already in the works to expand that (in BC I think it was). There are also going to be the questions regarding who can request/facilitate the death and by what method. Why can't a care provider/legal guardian request it on behalf of someone who's mentally incompetent, even if that person expresses wishes to the contrary? Why can't the mode be witholding of care? Can someone be legally responsible for "accidentally" causing another's death by pursuing what they believe to be appropriate treatment, even if conventional medical practices deem it not?  
 
These questions don't necessarily apply to this case because it predates the change in law, but these are questions that are going to come up in the next few years.