From a medical standpoint, when any human is emaciated to that horrific of a degree, there isn't much you can do immediately on the spot. "Normal" food, if given to someone in that state, will shock the body because it isn't prepared to digest or deal with anything like that. Certain proteins, certain nutrients have to be reintroduced to the body, or else the effects could be negative.
That answers the outcry of feeding the child, but as to the vulture, I think I remember hearing in our class that the photographer did indeed shoo it away right after the photo was taken.
Okay. Now, to the actual thrust of your question.
The idea of "how far is too far" has been circulating for years and years. It's not just photography, it's any art form as a whole. My experience with the issue has been mostly from the film and video media standpoint, but a lot of it carries over, don'tcha know.
In my opinion, these photos should exist. You get to see something you wouldn't normally see, or be allowed to see. Your eyes are opened, even if you're upset about what's happened. I'm not saying that anyone who saw the photo of that child immediately went out and donated to a mission center, or something, but it certainly puts the thought in your mind. It's a harsh, awful reality and it gives you a piece of the picture you might not have had before.
You get into sticky areas with it when you come up against someone else's rights to privacy, or if the content was delivered with the intent to hurt or mar them in some other fashion. Also, the notion of what's classified and private, versus what isn't classified and private.
I feel like I'm just kinda rambling, without really giving any actual answer, so I'll just wrap the post up here.
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RolePlayGateway/~3/QDdk-OygPaA/viewtopic.php
orioles correspondents dinner i am legend san antonio spurs greta van susteren tony parker the five year engagement
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.