Duggar Disturbing photo?

[The Mystery Machine]

i truly despise nearly everything there is to despise about the duggers but i have no judgement on how they want to hold a memorial service.

mte

 

[tink_n_pooh]

Wishing you a healthy pregnancy

Thank you!

 

[princessmom29]

I honestly don't understand what you expected them to do. They lost a daughter, and they held a memorial service for her just like any family not on TV might choose to do. It's common practice to have pictures in a program at a memorial service, and the Duggars chose to follow that custom. I would imagine they planned the memorial service to be a celebration of her short life and to bring them comfort as they grieve, just as any parent who loses a child would do.

Honestly, they are darned if they do and darned if they don't. It seems to me that they had to make the choice they felt was best for them in this situation. It's not like they can help who releases the photos to the media in the end anyway, so if the photos brought them comfort, then more power to them.

I just don't understand the concept that as public figures they have absolutely NO right to privacy or expectation of privacy. That's akin to saying that no hollywood star has the right to have a private funeral service for a loved one because they choose to make money in the public eye.

To me it just seems like your dislike for the Duggars (which you are perfectly entitled to feel) makes you think they deserve no private moment to grieve or no privacy of any sort just because they have a TV show in which SOME moments of their lives are aired.

No, that's not what I am saying at all. They are of course entitled to privacy. I don't begrudge them that, but they have put themselves in a position where that is much harder to come by. They chose to do so. I was commenting on the post that said that they didn't want the photos released. If that had really been the case, then they would not have handed them out at the memorial service. They HAD to know they would be published. That is thier chioce, but i feel like they HAD to know it would happen and be ok with that to choose to publish them on the handout for the service.

They took these pictures and shared them at the memorial service so that those that love and care for them could see their daughter. So that they could also grieve and mourn with them. Should they have had no pictures, or keep them locked away, just because there is a possibility that they may end up in the hands of the media?

I don't think the Duggars really care if they ended up in the hands of the media or not. This is their daughter, and i don't know any parent that is ashamed of their child and wants to hide them away.

Anyway, who is saying that the Duggars are upset about these pictures making it out there? I am just saying that I don't believe that they are the ones who released them to the media or sent them over to TMZ.

And all I am saying is that they made the pictures public by passing them out at the serivce and had to know they would ifnd thier way to the media. I would assume that if they truly didn't want that, they wouldn't have handed out copies.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

I have never understood why people talk about things they dislike. What the point?

Aren't you talking about things you dislike right now? The point is probably the same.

As for me, I can't stomach the Duggars either, but I think the pictures are beautiful.

 

[NYEmomma]

I truly despise nearly everything there is to despise about the Duggers but I have no judgement on how they want to hold a memorial service.

As for TMZ getting the pictures and posting them, I see your point and it is sad if Dugger's didn't release the picture that the vultures know no boundaries.

But when you make your fortune commercializing and exploiting your children and your family uterus - there are predictably bad outcomes. It's unfortunate but when you deliberately set off an avalanche right above your head there is a decent chance you'll end up buried.

Exactly -- I don't even know where to start to describe how much I hate this family & everything they stand for.

But I find nothing inappropriate with them choosing to grieve this way. Whatever comforts & helps a grieving family is wholly appropriate, IMO. If they want a picture of their baby's feet, his face, the whole body, so be it. It's their child & they're the ones mourning his/her loss.

 

[akhenaten]

I have never understood why people talk about things they dislike. What the point?

people talk about things they don't like all of the time... bad days at work, movies they hated, people giving them problems...celebrity gossip

the "point" can be simply conversation, venting, sharing an opinion,or gossip...

 

[akhenaten]

Aren't you talking about things you dislike right now? The point is probably the same.

As for me, I can't stomach the Duggars either, but I think the pictures are beautiful.

excellent example... LOL

 

[pixiefairy]

I thought the pictures were touching. I've seen many, many pictures of babies born sleeping while on my baby birth board years ago. It just makes me sad, but I always told the moms that their child was beautiful, and what lovely pictures. Like so many have said...people mourn differently. My cousin lost triplets after they were born too early...I know she took pictures. It helped her grieve and she had healthy twins a few years later. I even ran across a picture at my dd's school while waiting for a parent teacher conference. The kids were asked to bring in a photo of someone important to them and write a paragraph. One of dd's classmates had a baby sister whole was born still. It was touching and heartbreaking, but that was how that family grieved.

I, too, am not a huge fan of the Duggar's, but if this was how they felt at peace with the miscarriage, then more power to them.

 

[Eeyore98]

I think everyone grieves differently and it is wrong to tell a person how to do it. Also, maybe they did it to remind people that this was a child, some don't think so until a certain month, and that it should be treated as such and not a "clump of cells" waiting to become a child.

This baby was 20 weeks along, which is where the phrase "late-term" comes into play. No one thinks a 20-week fetus is just a "clump of cells".

Also, the feet/hands were deliberately chosen, as the extremities are developed early and would be the most "normal" looking part of a baby at this age.

I agree that they did it to advance their viewpoint, though.

 

[NotUrsula]

Technically, 20 weeks gestation qualifies as a stillbirth, rather than a miscarriage, because 20 weeks is actually the dividing line.

As to the photos, that type of b/w "artistic" photo is very common in such situations; there is a charity called Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep that recruits professional photographers to take these photographs free of charge for grieving families. My sister is a volunteer. The photos are almost always b/w because color would be jarring, and more often than not are posed so that only part of the baby's body is seen, and yes, most often it is the soles of the feet.

An article on NILMDTS: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/30/family-portraits.html

 

[Deb in IA]

I have a picture of my grandson Thomas who died 12/19/2007 invitro at 8 months.

I'll have to google the pic but I know a couple whose baby died in vitro and they took pics (not just of her feet) and put them in an album that they displayed at the memorial service (and posted on Facebook) and those pics did bother me. But I still felt like whatever made this easier for them to bear was what they should do, I just avoided looking at the pics as much as possible.

Yes, I'm nit-picky, but my scientific brain is having a hard time with this.

In VITRO (Latin: literally, "in glass") means biological components outside of their usual context, such as in a "test tube baby".

I don't know of any baby that has lived to 8 months gestation outside of a biologic environment (ie. a uterus).

 

[NotUrsula]

It's a common terminology mixup for people who don't use Latin terms on a common basis. What they meant was in utero, but since the term in vitro is so often used when the topic of infertility comes up, many people unconsciously associate it with pregnancy.

 

[bumbershoot]

And all I am saying is that they made the pictures public by passing them out at the serivce and had to know they would ifnd thier way to the media. I would assume that if they truly didn't want that, they wouldn't have handed out copies.

But why would they expect that a family member would do this? If you were invited to the service, would YOU tweet it or put it on FB or contact TMZ? Why should someone have the expectation that someone close enough to be invited to something like this would make something public?

A friend of mine was friends with the current Mrs Eastwood, and went to the bridal shower...she didn't take pictures and sell them to media outlets. Why would anyone expect that that might happen?

Just because they made something available to friends and family members doesn't mean they should have expected it. Now, going forward, they certain can expect it, but maybe not before.


I'm not even a fan of theirs LOL...I'm not religious (though a simple embryology class gave me beliefs that sound religious, though they aren't), I can't imagine having started so early with kids, and I wouldn't give up nursing just to have another baby and another and another (though I'm certainly open to having as many kidlets as my body will let me...it's just that so far my body has only let me have one, but not for lack of trying!)... But I still don't think they needed to expect that a family member would give up their pictures like that...

Yes, I'm nit-picky, but my scientific brain is having a hard time with this.

In VITRO (Latin: literally, "in glass") means biological components outside of their usual context, such as in a "test tube baby".

I don't know of any baby that has lived to 8 months gestation outside of a biologic environment (ie. a uterus).

OH thank you so much. I was trying to figure out how to say that...

 

[Deb in IA]

It's a common terminology mixup for people who don't use Latin terms on a common basis. What they meant was in utero, but since the term in vitro is so often used when the topic of infertility comes up, many people unconsciously associate it with pregnancy.

Ah, that explains it.

I guess those terms are so dissimilar to me that I was confused.

Thanks!

 

[MnMomtoboys]

Ah, that explains it.

I guess those terms are so dissimilar to me that I was confused.

Thanks!

Since you have a medical degree I would hope you would know the difference.

 

[Deb in IA]

Since you have a medical degree I would hope you would know the difference.

Yes, I do.

As I tried to explain, in vitro and in utero are so completely different to me, that when used in the wrong context, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Ember]

I, personally, don't care for the photos. The hands and feet don't look fully formed. This is very different from saying the photos are wrong or that there is anything wrong with them, though.

I was once asked to be part of a photography network called "Angel Babies" that does hospital bereavement photography for stillborn or only a few hours to live babies. You are basically on call, day or night, for the hospital to phone if a situation arises and someone would like your services. There was a whole manual on how to photograph the child depending on how developed the fetus was. The whole idea made me queasy, and I quickly turned them down.

Now, I recognize that this says a lot more about my personal comfort level than it does about anything to do with these types of photos. I would never judge someone on how they choose to mourn.

After my mother died we didn't have any sort of funeral and went to Disney World instead (which is what she wanted), then had her ashes interred as part of a living coral reef off the coast of Sarasota. (In my mother's words, "Tell everyone you put me to sleep with the fishes!") I faced a fair amount of criticism over this. I didn't do things "properly." I simply do not think there is a right or wrong way to grieve, and if the photos helped the Duggar's in any way, then they fulfilled their purpose.

 

[princessmom29]

But why would they expect that a family member would do this? If you were invited to the service, would YOU tweet it or put it on FB or contact TMZ? Why should someone have the expectation that someone close enough to be invited to something like this would make something public?

A friend of mine was friends with the current Mrs Eastwood, and went to the bridal shower...she didn't take pictures and sell them to media outlets. Why would anyone expect that that might happen?

Just because they made something available to friends and family members doesn't mean they should have expected it. Now, going forward, they certain can expect it, but maybe not before.


I'm not even a fan of theirs LOL...I'm not religious (though a simple embryology class gave me beliefs that sound religious, though they aren't), I can't imagine having started so early with kids, and I wouldn't give up nursing just to have another baby and another and another (though I'm certainly open to having as many kidlets as my body will let me...it's just that so far my body has only let me have one, but not for lack of trying!)... But I still don't think they needed to expect that a family member would give up their pictures like that...



OH thank you so much. I was trying to figure out how to say that...

Because they are famous FOR thier reproductive decisions. Of course the media would be interested in this/ They had to have known that, and according to a PP Amy put them up on her facebook as well, so appparently no one was told NOT to share them.

 

[lucas]

Because they are famous FOR thier reproductive decisions. Of course the media would be interested in this/ They had to have known that, and according to a PP Amy put them up on her facebook as well, so appparently no one was told NOT to share them.

Why Amy would post them on Facebook and Twitter is beyond me.

 

[S. C.]

I think everyone grieves differently and it is wrong to tell a person how to do it. Also, maybe they did it to remind people that this was a child, some don't think so until a certain month, and that it should be treated as such and not a "clump of cells" waiting to become a child.

Well said!