I’m not sure how I feel about this. The arguments made by others make a lot of sense (but I still find it all a bit creepy). It’s a personal decision on the part of the parents, I guess.
I was supposed to be stillborn. My umbilical cord got wrapped around my neck a few weeks before I was born, and I dropped something like two pounds. They were so sure I would be stillborn that they had a priest in the delivery room to give me last rites.
I survived, obviously, but I was born looking like a black jujube. Not blue - black. They figured I’d had substantial brain damage from the lack of oxygen before I was born, that it would take me a long time to walk and talk (if at all), and the like. As it turns out, I developed normally, even learning to talk and read very early.
I can’t imagine the pain these parents must have gone through. If having a picture of the baby you’ll never know or see grow up is a source of comfort, then so be it.
Personally, I’m fine with the taking of photos, but I find the retouching idea rather odd. But hey, that’s just my opinion. The important thing is that parents who have lost a child to stillbirth have the choice to remember their baby in whatever way they see fit. Some parents will want to see what might have been, others to see the dead child as he/she was, and others to not see any pictures at all.
In his excellent memoir With Nails, actor Richard E. Grant talks about the death of his first daughter, who died half an hour after her premature birth. He and his wife were left alone with the baby for a little while, and when hospital staff returned, they had a Polaroid camera and asked the Grants if they would like a photo of themselves holding the baby. They initially objected, but the staff said that many parents found it comforting and that they would probably be glad to have it later on.
He doesn’t say anything about the photo anywhere else in the book, but it shows us that this kind of photography was practiced and even encouraged in at least one London hospital in the mid-1980s.
I understand the rationale behind having a photo taken, and I can stretch that understanding to include the photo retoutching, but…I just don’t know. I’ve never been in that situation (And I hope I never will be; I’m so sorry for your loss, Avalonian.) and I expect that my judgement of the practice would swing heavily upon the emotions of the moment.
When my sister’s twins were born prematurely, one died right away. The hospital asked my sister if she wanted to see the one that died. She said no, but would like to hold the one that was still alive. They brought the baby into her and when she lifted the blanket to look at her, she found they’d given her the dead baby. She freaked out and had to be sedated. She never did get to see the living baby before she died. They did it to her deliberately because they said that mothers often wouldn’t accept the death of the child without seeing it. She has always regretted not being able to see her baby while it was alive. I think pictures might’ve helped.
StG
You people have NO fucking idea what it is like to lose a baby to stillbirth. Would you destroy photos of a child who died at 3 months, 3 years, 21 years? I mean isn’t it creepy to have photos of a now dead person? It’s not like you have a choice about taking a photo before the baby died.
When a baby dies before or near birth, you’ve got very little time to make memories. Referring to dead babies as just a lump of dead flesh is just appallingly disrespectful and hurtful. When my son was born, he was wrapped as it was not possible to wash and dress him because of the state he was in. If he had died at 3 months would it have been creepy to wash him after death?
It’s still your beloved baby and a lifetime of dreams lost. I didn’t feel my son was a lump of dead flesh. He was my son who happened to have died tragically. We had him in a bassinet at home for 2 days and then we had a full funeral. There are many, many photos of him which helps to crystalise that he was real and that he died. There’s nothing creepy at all about recognising a baby who died.
I’ve considered having a portrait done but haven’t found anyone who does work which I like. I don’t have the photos on display because my beautiful much-loved son was seriously macerated.
Ultimately you live your life with a child missing. Don’t ever judge anyone who is trying to make sense of that loss. I hope none of you ever have to try and work through a loss as catastrophic as an unexpected stillbirth.
StGermain, that’s appalling! How cruel :(. Of course she should have seen the living child. It’s true that seeing the dead child does help parents accept the loss but that’s no reason for not letting her hold and see the living child. It’s not like she wasn’t able to see them both.
I cannot imagine how I would be feeling if all of them had died soon after birth/were stillborn.
What if the baby that died was the only pregnancy which went on far enough to CREATE a recognisable baby? In that case, why WOULDN’T the couple want a beautiful picture to remind them of what they lost?
A few years ago a collegue had brought some photos of her baby into work to show around, as she’d been asked to. Eventually I got nosy and went over for a coo, saying how beautiful a little girl she was, what a peaceful sleeper. The baby’s lips were a deep red, which I’d never seen before, so I asked what had caused the colouring. My collegue looked shocked, caught her breath and began to tear up, then asked me if I didn’t know. It was her stillborn baby, and I’d had no idea at all, no-one had told me.
I spent the rest of the day feeling awful that I’d upset her, she’d even disappeared for a weep in the bathroom. But at the end of the day as I was leaving, she came up and thanked me because to her, her daughter had always looked like a sleeping child. But she’d always suspected everyone else was just seeing a dead baby and simply cooed in order to comfort her. So my unknowing reaction had meant a great deal, as the photos were about her most precious possession.
My mother had many miscarriages and two stillbirths; my twin miscarried at seven months (I was born prem a month later). She’s often said she wished she at least had a grave to visit, or a photograph of the babies she’d lost.
I found the site terribly heartbreaking, but not creepy or icky. I see that she offers the service for a donation–if she were charging big bucks, then I’d peg her as an icky person.
If I were a bereaved parent, I would do this in a heartbeat. But that’s the way I (think, at least) would need to deal with my grief.
I can understand that someone else might feel completely differently, and find the whole idea appalling.
I think it’s very important for us to tread lightly here; some of our members are bereaved parents, and their needs and feelings must be of paramount consideration.
**Primaflora, ** I’m so terribly sorry for your loss.
~karol
Generally, I find post mortem photogrpahy to be rather icky, whether it’s of children or adults. However I’ve seen some absolutely, breathtakingly beautiful photos (one that comes to mind is of an infant’s funeral in Mexico).
However, looking at the website, I found the “retouched” photos to be quite disturbing. I’ve seen retouched photos of a much, muchsuperior quality, and the ones on the site I honestly found quite ghastly. Though the infants in the original photos may have been discolored, and some malformed, I found they seemed much more soulful than the ghoulish touch-ups.
If I took a photo of my own dead child (not that I’d ever have kids, but hypothetically), I’d rather have an image of my child as I experienced him/her in my arms. The retouched photos looked like horror movie dolls.
At first I thought it was creepy, then I looked at the site and found it even more creepy to make something like that a business but that said…
I think anything that helps a parent grieve is thier business. I cannot imgaine how horrible it would be to have a stillborn baby, so anything that gives them comfort is suitable for them.
For all of the parents here who shared their grief, you have my prayers and my love
Assuming it’s the same site as the one I saw a couple of weeks ago I think one of the pictures is pretty personal to the site’s owner. I don’t find it at all creepy (though it’s emotionally taxing which is why I’m not going back to check). I think it’s a really important service and a sign of progress.
After reading the responses after my first knee-jerk response, I’d like to apologize to anyone who has suffered such a tragic loss and who has been helped by such pictures. They are certainly not sick people. It’s still kind of creepy to me, but not sicko.
My mom had a stillborn daughter about a year before I was born. In some ways, I grieve for her. I always wanted a little sister. I would love to have a momento of her brief physical presence. Strangely, I would have preferred an unretouched photo. However, is what these parents doing really all that different from traditional funereal proceedures when a person dies later in life?
I didn’t go to the link. I don’t have to. My husband has a picture of his uncle (who was stillborn) upstairs in the photo box.
His grandmother had this child late in life. They never were sure why the child was stillborn; the doctors couldn’t find anything at all wrong with it. Of course, this was quite a few years ago. Possibly, had it happened today, the child may have lived.
Anyway, when she was told the baby was dead, she pleaded to see it. Back then, from what I have heard, it was common practice to not let the mother see their dead child. She stayed in a very deep depression for a long time, and knew that had she been able to “let go” by holding him or at least seeing him, it might not have been quite so bad.
Her great aunt dressed the baby (for the funeral) in what would have been his “homecoming” clothes and her friend took a picture for hubby’s grandmother, so at least she would be able to see what he looked like. She carried that picture with her until her death in 1995.
So yes, it must be a source of comfort to those who have lost children. Thank God I have no idea if that kind of picture would offer me comfort, or not.
No, not creepy. Heartbreaking to look at, but it sounds like this service really would help the bereaved parents.
The woman who does the pictures says that she did it herself at first so that she could share the pictures with her family and friends. I can understand why a parent would want other people to see what their child looked like (what parent doesn’t?) and want to show them a real child, not with bruises and those other marks, which aren’t really part of the ‘essential’ child. The touch-ups don’t look too good, admittedly, but this could be the resolution on the site; the real photos are probably better quality.
When my daughter was born, she had the cord around her neck, was grey in colour and took several minutes to start breathing. Without better medical care, she could have been one of these children. I’m just thankful she’s not.