001. @mysask.com, in an article attributed to "the Canadian Press", we're told in "Bioethicist Says Stephan Conviction Highlights a Need for Reporting of Neglect" (2016-04-29):
"The Crown said there was no doubt the Stephans loved their child, but didn't follow the standard of care as set by criminal law. Court heard how the couple was warned by both a friend, who was a registered nurse, and a naturopathic doctor that the boy should be taken to a hospital. The College of Naturopathic Doctors of Alberta is investigating the actions of the naturopath, who has not commented since the trial [...]";
so, the claim here is that the ND also advised emergency care. And there's an investigation by the NDs peers / regulatory body of peers. College here, for American readers, should not be mistaken for "school". Here it is an overseeing regulatory body.
"the naturopath, Tracey Tannis, testified she was with a patient when a clinic worker interrupted to tell her a mother was on the phone asking about a treatment for meningitis [...Tannis] said she instructed the worker to tell the mother to 'take the child to emergency right away,' and then stayed by the phone long enough to confirm the message was relayed. Tannis testified she never met the mother but the worker, Lexie Vataman, told court she introduced them when Collet Stephan later arrived at the clinic [...]";
something REALLY SMELLS here. The accounts are in conflict. Dare I say that someone isn't telling the truth. I'd argue that the person who has more to lose is the person more likely to not tell the truth.
"an Alberta Justice official said it isn't up to government to decide on further charges in the case. 'There are other parties, namely police and professional associations, that are responsible for investigating the conduct of third parties that may have been involved in this tragic situation,' said press secretary Veronica Jubinville. 'We cannot speculate on the result of any investigations that may be occurring' [...]";
so, will the police defer to the CNDA? And since naturopathy is based on falsehoods and deceptions, will CNDA be bothered by anything the ND has done? NDs in Alberta have a statute to operate the way they want, manners that other businesses would be prosecuted for. I smell the special privilege that licensure and registration of NDs creates. From CNDA: "naturopathic programs include basic and clinical medical sciences [...] NDs study the same basic medical and clinical sciences as other healthcare professionals [...] these sciences lay the foundation." So, there's the claim of a foundation of science or 'science subset naturopathy.' Yet, we find, within naturopathy, utter nonscience, such as [from CNDA] homeopathy, homeopath and applied kinesiology, detoxification, and IV ozone. This is permitted illegality: false claims upon products and services and CNDA is unfit to police themselves. Absurdity has no problem with itself.