I defended Ebert against his critics because I thought that what he did was mild and what his critics did was disproportionate. Criticism of Amy Winehouse, however, has always seemed a bit over the top to me. This site has always seemed to be in bad taste, for instance, and I don’t think the way it’s owners have responded to her death is sincere.
When asking “what if it was your child,” however, we need to ask why we think that question is relevant. Parents are biased towards their children; they’re supposed to be (within reason), and we’d think there was something wrong with them if they didn’t value their own children more than the children of a stranger (ceteris paribus).
This means, however, that asking “what if it was your child” is a request that someone be less objective when considering a situation. No, people would not be as judgmental if it was their child or loved one who died. That doesn’t mean that the opinion based on parental bias is to be more trusted than the one not based on parental bias.
Note, however, that I do not call the latter opinion “unbiased.” The more venomous responses to Amy Winehouse’s death seem to exhibit every sign of people taking an immoderate pleasure from the tragedy of another for the sake of their own self-satisfaction. This is hardly a commendable or even an objective take on the situation.
In the end, I find the point made by @ANef_is_Enuf to be more important: the real tragedy of death befalls the survivors, and their feelings should be kept in mind when commenting on the events in question. I do not think this means remaining silent or completely uncritical, as my defense of Ebert shows; but it does mean refraining from the purely gratuitous viciousness and schadenfreude some people have been indulging in these last two days.