Eric, in regards to your comments about an unauthorized release of a personal image, it brings up the age-old dilemma of what is in the best interest of the persons involved and their desires, (which in my mind should have every consideration), what is in the interest of history in the long run, and what is merely taking advantage of a person, who for whatever reason is the hot topic of interest on a global scale, (thereby, in the minds of some, fair game for exploitation).
It is a delicate line to straddle requiring the best of motives and sensitivity. When the late Walter Lord entered his decline, he was helpless in every sense of the word to control those who would photograph him and how any images taken by visitors might be used. The best bet, I suppose, is to try to surround yourself with friends and people who can be trusted as we become infirm and powerless. Even then, there emerges a possibility that an acquaintance, who will think it makes no difference now, as he/she is no longer on earth to suffer embarassment or deprivation of privacy, will run to the Press.
Ours is a visual society demanding images, faces, proofs, -where all is laid bare, not to mention the misguided aim of being the first to uncover some aspect of a private life and the attention, (often positive), that would garner. To be private is to now be thought uncooperative or anti-social. Long distance zoom lenses, paparazzi, hidden cameras- there is no end, nor do I believe we will see a return to gentler times. Some are strong enough to stand the pressure, some become victims of a relentless thirst for newsworthy copy. One of the saddest cases in recent days must be that of the late Princess of Wales.
Perhaps the individual who released the photo of an ageing and bedridden Miss Asplund thought it was a wonderful thing and would be wounded if anyone critcised. We are all, in the end of life, very much at the mercy of others, and one prays that those in whom we trust will be mindful of our desires- and merciful.
