The League of the Strong Joins Statement Against the Publication of Vulnerable Images of Persons with Disabilities and Children

The League of the Strong has joined a joint statement initiated by the NGO See with the Heart calling for an end to the use of vulnerable photographs of persons with disabilities and children in public communications. The signatories urge charitable foundations, volunteers, and media organizations to abandon this practice because of the risks it poses to privacy, dignity, and safety.

The initiative was also supported by Vidchui (Feel), the Chernivtsi Association “Protection”, Dream Workshop, the Active Rehabilitation Group, Visible, Family for Persons with Disabilities, and a number of public advocates.

The organizations and advocates call on volunteers, charitable foundations, and other organizations not to use vulnerable images of children and adults with disabilities on social media as part of their reporting activities.

Vulnerable photographs are images that portray people in moments of weakness, intimacy, or helplessness. These may include nude or partially clothed photographs, images taken inside homes that reveal a family’s vulnerable socioeconomic status, or pictures that focus primarily on a person’s diagnosis. Such images can expose both children and adults with disabilities to significant risks.

Daria Kukurika, Executive Director of the League of the Strong

“When we tell the stories of persons with disabilities and speak about our work, it is important to remember two dimensions.

The first is the story of a specific individual. We must consider how our chosen form of communication will affect how that person is perceived in society and whether they are represented with dignity and respect for their experiences and identity.

The second dimension is the broader social narrative we create. If organizations repeatedly show persons with disabilities only holding humanitarian aid packages or boxes of diapers, this becomes the image society associates with disability — not equality or agency, but pity and dependence on assistance.

This remains a serious problem because such representations still dominate public discourse. It is essential to see persons with disabilities not only as recipients of support but as individuals with talents, strengths, challenges, personalities, experiences, and valuable roles in society.

Only then does communication become more than reporting — it becomes a strategic tool for changing public perceptions.”

Olesia Yaskevich, director of the nonprofit organization “See with Your Heart”:

Every child, regardless of their health condition, has the right to privacy, dignity, and control over their own image. Children—and sometimes adults—with disabilities cannot give informed consent to the publication of their photographs, especially those showing their medical conditions, medical procedures, or vulnerable moments. By publishing such images, organizations/foundations/initiatives effectively turn a person into a communication tool rather than recognizing them as a full-fledged rights holder.

Photos that focus on physical characteristics, suffering, or “overcoming challenges” create a distorted image of people with disabilities in society. For a child, this can have long-term consequences: when they grow up and find these images online, they may feel ashamed, violated, and as though their vulnerability has been exposed without their consent.

Content posted on social media spreads in unpredictable ways. Photos of children with disabilities may:

• fall into the hands of predators who specifically target vulnerable children;
• be taken out of context and used for discrimination or bullying;
• remain online forever, even after the original has been deleted;
• allow a child’s identity and location to be identified through metadata or geotags.

Daria Gerasymchuk, CEO of the NGO “Vidchuy”:

A child must not be used as a tool for public reporting, even if the intentions are good. Photos taken when a child is in a vulnerable state, emphasizing pain, a diagnosis, or helplessness, violate not only privacy but also dignity. We must remember: everything adults post today will stay with the child for a long time—in their future, in their self-identity, in their sense of security. Ethical communication begins when we prioritize not the need to showcase our work, but the child’s right to respect, protection, and humane treatment. We can report on aid without exploiting vulnerability—through content, results, consistency, and stories centered not on pity, but on dignity.

Maria Nikitina, Chair of the Board of the Chernivtsi Association “Zakhyst”:

No amount of reporting can justify violating a child’s dignity. Using sensitive photos of children with disabilities is not about helping them—it’s about exploiting them. Children do not choose to have strangers know about their condition. Today it’s a “report,” but in a few years, that same child or young person may face bullying or other forms of humiliation because of those very photos, videos, or articles. We need to remember right now that we must build communication that protects the child, not one that uses their image for our own purposes.

Galina Shtogrin, Director of Development at the nonprofit organization “Dream Workshop”:

The decision to publish or not publish photos of people in vulnerable situations stems from corporate culture. Culture always stems from values. But at the same time, it shapes those values: how the team perceives its work, how partners view you, and, most importantly, how the people the organization helps see themselves—as helpless supplicants or as people building their own lives.

Vitaliy Pcholkin, Executive Director of the NGO “Active Rehabilitation Group”

This issue goes far beyond the protection of children’s rights—it is critical for the entire community of people with disabilities, regardless of age. The publication of sensitive content depicting intimate aspects of the lives of people with conditions such as spinal cord injuries constitutes a gross violation of their dignity and right to privacy.

Why this is unacceptable:

• Violation of privacy: Rehabilitation processes, hygiene procedures, and medical interventions are deeply personal. Publicly displaying them is not a matter of “transparency” in reporting, but rather a direct exploitation of a person’s vulnerability.
• Stigmatization of adults: Adults with disabilities are often targeted for manipulative fundraising. This strips them of their agency and reinforces the image of the “eternal victim” in society, which contradicts the principles of independent living.
• The irreversibility of the digital footprint: any photo that degrades a person’s dignity for the sake of fundraising remains online forever. This creates long-term risks to a person’s reputation and psychological well-being. Having a disability does not make one’s private life public property. No charitable cause justifies the display of helplessness.

Olena Pshenychna, Director of the NGO “Vidimi”

Families of children or adults with disabilities, when facing hardship and urgent need and receiving assistance from donors or organizations, do not always feel they have the strength, courage, or even the awareness of their right to set certain ethical boundaries regarding images and videos in which they appear, or to refuse public reporting altogether. And that is precisely why these ethical boundaries must be built into the communication framework of those providing this assistance from the outset. This must be spelled out in the communication policy, communicated to the entire team, and, if necessary, articulated to partners and donors.

Finding forms of public reporting grounded in human dignity is always a longer journey—one that sometimes even requires creativity and the need to persuade partners—but it is the only right path if we truly want to help rather than cause harm. After all, a digital footprint is something that, unfortunately, does not disappear after reporting and the completion of projects, but remains with the child, the adult with a disability, and their families forever. And, actually, there’s a very simple self-check exercise: when taking and posting such a photo or video, imagine yourself or someone close to you in place of the child or adult with a disability. Does that thought make you feel comfortable? Would you want a photo of yourself like that “floating around” on social media? I think the answer is obvious.  

Tetyana Shapovalova, Chair of the Board of the NGO “Family for People with Disabilities”

We work with people with intellectual disabilities—both children and adults. Every day, we see just how fragile the line is between consent and the inability to express it. That is why the responsibility lies with those who are present and make decisions about publication.

Ethical communication begins with respect. With a willingness to pause and refrain from publishing what a person would not be able to choose for themselves. Because a photo taken in a vulnerable state is about a moment of trust. And, at the same time, about the risk of turning that vulnerability into a resource.

Lina Deshvar, a civil society activist in the field of child rights protection and an advocate for children with experience in residential care and children with disabilities

In my work, I rely on the basic principles of safe-guarding.

The first is “do no harm.” Any publication must pass a simple test: does it increase risks for the child—now or in the future? Sensitive photos almost always create these risks: bullying, stigmatization, unwanted attention, and sometimes dangerous scenarios (pedophilia).

The second is dignity above all else. A child is not a commodity or a reporting tool. They do not exist to “validate” someone’s work with their body, emotions, or condition. When we publish vulnerability, we devalue the person.

Third is privacy and consent. Children, especially in vulnerable situations, cannot give full and informed consent to being made public. Therefore, the responsibility lies entirely with adults. And that responsibility is to protect, not to expose.

Professional ethics are clear here: if the results of the work cannot be presented without exposing the child’s vulnerability, this is a matter of approach, not a “lack of content” or “how to report.” Ethical work is measured not by what we show, but by what we consciously choose not to publish.

Inna Miroshnychenko, partner at PRONIN&PARTNERS, advocate for orphaned children, member of the International Board of SOS Children’s Villages International and the Supervisory Board of SOS Children’s Villages Ukraine

Human life and health, honor and dignity, inviolability and safety are recognized in Ukraine as the highest social values. So says the Constitution of Ukraine. But what does reality show? Is a publication that evokes pity a sign of respect for dignity and honor? No. These are completely opposite things. We must foster a culture in which the desire to support others stems not from pity (and thus, the comparison—someone is worse off than I am), but from a sense of unity. We are each other’s support. Especially for a child.

Unfortunately, the cultivation of vulnerability leads to each subsequent photo and each subsequent post becoming increasingly explicit, increasingly emphasizing suffering, in order to encourage people to donate more. This is essentially the commodification of pain.

A child cannot say “no” because they may not even realize they have that right. The child’s parents are forced to sell their parental pain and the child’s pain in exchange for the chance to receive support, without which they cannot survive. And that is sad.