Last month I saw a lot of posts and articles on the Duggar family and the recent tragedy they suffered when they lost their 20th child at 19 weeks gestation. I had a lot of thoughts on the matter at the time and still do so thought I'd share.
Just a little background for anyone unfamiliar with the story, the Duggar's have 19 {living} children and at a routine appointment at 19 weeks, the Duggar's learned that their baby girl, their 20th child, no longer had a heartbeat. Michelle Duggar naturally miscarried a few days later. Had this happened just one week later, Michelle Duggar's loss would have been considered a stillbirth and not a miscarriage. The defining line between the two being at 20 weeks gestation.
My first thought was two-fold and maybe, probably, a little harsh of me. But I thought what a shame it was and I felt bad for their loss, but I also thought "I'm not surprised after that many kids!" Maybe that's cruel of me, but I lost my
first child. Even now I think my successful pregnancy outcome is only 1 out of 2. So this somewhat jaded part of me knows that it could be worse than 19 out of 21 (she had an early miscarriage several years ago in addition to the most recent loss). But like I said, that's probably a little harsh. And that's the part of me that thinks they are nuts to want/have that many children in the first place, especially with the health issues of their 19th baby who was born severely premature.
But there's this other part of me who thinks big deal! So they want to have a lot of kids? They are decent people and raise children with wholesome values and they just have a really, really strong sense of family. I may not agree with them or their views, but I've yet to see one of their children commit a crime or be a menace to society. They can afford their children and provide for them. So what's the big deal if they want to have a plethora of kids? (obviously there are a lot of counter arguments to this notion)
And above all else, I mostly feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for the little girl who only lived 19 weeks in utero and sorry for the family who loved her, wanted her, and misses her. And I feel especially sorry for the scrutiny they fell under last month over the pictures they took of their child, of little Jubilee.
I read
this article and was a little upset with this part:
“It just seems too public and almost seems like, ‘OK, we’re stars, everybody wants to know abut us,’” said Susan Newman, a social psychologist who has taken the Duggars to task for continuing to procreate in two columns for Psychology Today. “From what I know of parents who have lost children, it’s horrific. It’s not something you want pictures of.”
Clearly ole Susie has been fortunate enough never to lose a child. Yup, losing a child is horrific, I'll give her that. But it
is something you want pictures of. She makes it seem as if there is something wrong with them for taking photographs of their child. But I think what's most upsetting is her viewpoint is probably a pretty common one in our society. Fortunately part of the article comes to the defense of
Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep, the organization that photographed Jubilee Duggar. I'll admit, when asked if I wanted to take pictures of Cale, my first thought was no. I thought it'd be too hard and that you only take pictures of happy outcomes. I didn't think it was wrong to ask, or wrong to do, but it just didn't feel right. Given the total shock we were in,
nothing felt right. But fortunately my nurse took pictures anyway. And I looked at them the second I got home without my baby boy. And have cherished them every day since. And I wish I had more. My two biggest regrets of our time with Cale was that I didn't hold him longer (although forever wouldn't have been long enough) and that I didn't take more pictures of him. I wish I knew about Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep and I wish they could have captured beautiful pictures of my beautiful son. So I think it's wonderful that the Duggar's were able to do this. I think it's wonderful that they will have reminders of the little life that existed, if only for a short while.
And after reading most articles and comments, I feel good to know that it seems most people, especially those in the baby loss community, are supporting and understanding of why the Duggar's took these pictures and sympathetic to their pain and their loss. In fact, I have yet to read a negative response to any of the articles I've seen. Everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion, but frankly, my opinion on the matter is that if you think there is something wrong with a picture of a lost child, then I think there's something wrong with you.
There is also
this good article which also defends their actions and looks at our views on death. I think this paragraph sums it up nicely:
"We live in an age in which we can chronicle every moment of our lives via our omnipresent cameras, yet we shudder at the idea of taking – and sharing – the image of a lost baby. For families who’ve endured the pain of pregnancy loss, though, that image will forever be all they have. Sure, not everybody copes with a miscarriage by holding a memorial and passing around pictures, but who’s to decide that grief has to be private? And who’s to say that what is to some just a “sick” photo of a dead fetus isn’t, to her parents, simply their child? And when it later becomes, as it inevitably must, easy for others to forget a life that never began and a hope that was quickly dashed, it’s understandable why it would be so important for the parents to have something to make sure they don’t. A picture. Something that proves that the child they desired was real. And that, just for a moment, they could hold her hand."
.JPG)
