Comments on: Eyewitness to a death What makes a great picture? Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:13:37 +0000 hourly 1 By: fay Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:12:24 +0000 hello !
i read alot about organ donor!!
i aske alot about the kidneys and i see alot of pepole suffer !
i wish can help ; because i want to do something nice in my life ..i would like to give one of my kidney my blood is a+ contact me at my email or my number phone 00213 6 69 61 44 37
good blees you

By: sue grieves Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:52:35 +0000 This piece is not without its artistic side. There is an unspoken aspect to it which occurred to me after reading it and responding the first time round.

I would like to ask the photographer if his reservations mentioned at the beginning imply that he–after the fact–wished he had saved this poor woman. She was one of his subjects who needed help but he kept taking pictures.

He says “it is not until hours later that I realise I had unconsciously registered that moment [of her death].” Is the photographer saying he realizes the woman was murdered? It’s probably important to clarify because there is much ignorance to dispel. More people will be butchered like this if the facts of organ harvesting isn’t made crystal clear. It’s not as if no one really knows because these surgeons are sure acting as though THEY do.

By: sue grieves Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:47:36 +0000 Your piece shows above all that the donor was alive during this procedure. Her body was mutilated and robbed. A rape victim photographed during an attack would have amounted to exactly the same process that you have photographed here.

Those who comment on how moving this is should really look at this again. Take off your blinders. The proof is there if you would accept that you are only blocking it out hoping you will get an organ one day. The consumer mentality sure is revolting!

By: David Evans Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:51:30 +0000 Fabrizio Bensch recognizes that the donor was alive at or soon after 3.30 a.m. At that time she was “motionless”, perhaps because she had been paralysed with drugs, but with her vital functions still present.
He describes her as dead, after some period of surgery, when the vital signs have disappeared following the order “we can switch off” at 5.42 a.m. What was switched off, presumably, was the mechanical ventilator, as well as the monitors displaying the heartbeat and blood pressure.
He feels he witnessed the donor’s death – in the operating theatre – at some time after her heart finally stopped beating (not necessarily co-terminous with the cessation of the monitor’s beeping). I think most people would agree with him.
The inescapable conclusion is that the donor was operated upon for the removal of her organs while still alive.

By: Diana Ngila Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:40:14 +0000 Thanks :-)
I also believe there’s no universal answer to that question Fabrizio. It means different things to different people but what’s important to me is to follow one’s heart. If it helps you sleep better at night, go ahead by all means…if not, don’t do it.

When it comes to covering something like war, I always wonder, is there a line to be drawn? I mean, not even war can change what people feel. So even then, you still weigh your options? And in following your heart, you use your brain too.

Why? “No picture is worth your life.”
Yeah, that’s what editors and others will say but no herograms come when you take a picture while 10miles away…the closer, the tighter, the better, the higher your chances of getting that award-winning shot and those herograms. What happens then? Ignore those comments/orders given to to you by the executives to cover themselves and go in or…?? What do you say to that?

By: Fabrizio Bensch Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:09:47 +0000 I would like to take the opportunity to answer Diana Ngila’s questions in public, because they are crucial ones when you touch this point of coverage in news business.
Honestly I can’t give you an universal answer, when I stop to shoot pictures, because it depends on the circumstances and the environment, but I can tell you from my experiences that I stop shooting immediately when it’s time to save a life, help injured people without any exception, or when continuing to take pictures might endangered people.
It is always a balancing act on the spot. Often eye contact to the persons in such situations can help a lot to open a way of personal communication. But there were situations where a camera was to intrusive and I didn’t shoot pictures. These pictures are still just in my memory only.

By: Joe Gavic Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:02:01 +0000 Very well done. This article was not only informative, but showed a sense of emotion that went perfectly with the story.

By: gyula csocsan Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:04:38 +0000 with this blog you made a nice memorial to this woman, who gave her life for other people who still had a chance

By: Diana Ngila Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:00:06 +0000 I feel as though I’m at a loss for words.
Moving account.
But to take you back, you said you would try to answer certain questions you asked which I feel were left unanswered. I agree with you that it’s a tough call…
“We have to make decisions about how close we can get to the victims. If we are not working then perhaps we are just in the way and may even be making matters worse. At what stage do we stop shooting pictures to help somebody who is hurt? What if it is a colleague?”
So at what stage do you stop? Do you help or continue shooting? When is it deemed intrusive?

By: ralpje Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:35:29 +0000 Very impressive coverage, just because of the fact that you tell everything by showing nothing. I can imagine it’s a tough job covering such a story, but it’s nice and clean. Great job!