Julie Goodyear photo - Bet Lynch

[littlecottonbud]

The husband has released a photo of Julie Goodyear - I feel this was best kept private, and to remember her how she was a glamorous blonde fierce bombshell, and not looking a shell of her former self. She has dementia so thankfully won't be aware of the published image (which I won't post here)

It's a nice photo, she looks happy but I'm concerned about the issue of consent.

I certainly wouldn’t want any photos of me being shown to anyone else. I don’t even like photos of myself now, and I’m not that far off Julie’s age.

I'm amazed some people haven't thought there could be an issue of informed consent with the photo. If there is, it makes me wonder what else could be going on in the home him and JG share.

I don't know why he put it on Facebook. It can't be because of money because he sold their house recently for £1.3 million.

Care fees don't come cheap - and those in expensive houses are just as liable for them as anybody else.

Of course, I just hastily assumed that as he’d been caring for her for years, that was going to continue. But that often isn’t the case as dementia advances.

Absolutely. As if women should only be present on SM in their most glamorous form. I think the posters talking about consent do have a point, but given how advanced her dementia is I imagine that her husband has to face difficult questions like that all the time and there's a whole range of perspectives and opinions that various carers would have which are both varied and loving. Can it be loving to refrain from posting a photo out of care for them? Yes. Can it be loving to post a photo celebrating your loved one in old age even though they look markedly different from how they used to? Yes.

Well said

There have been lots of pictures and videos of Marianne Faithful, and Olivia Newton John, as they were, just before they died.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with showing people as they age, but that's not the point here.
Julie retired from being in the spotlight years ago.
Had she wanted to be seen by the public she would have been.
Her husband, in posting this pic and others over the last couple of years, has, imo, robbed her of the privacy I'm sure she should have been awarded in the latter years of her life.

She was always in 'town'.
I imagine if someone comes from the same area as Julie Goodyear lives in, and went to the same venues, they would have seen her around a lot.
I come from Manchester, she was a well known figure, and she always portrayed herself as a well groomed, proud, glamorous woman, that was her style and the image she always lived up to.
She made the decision years ago to take herself out of the public eye.
Sad that her husband is posting photos of her now.

She sadly looks a lot older than 83. Absolutely no attempt has been made to dress her more appropriately and style her hair .
83 is not massively old!

Can it be loving to post a photo celebrating your loved one in old age even though they look markedly different from how they used to? Yes.

without their consent it isn't loving. You are controlling how they look and who the photo is shared with. Julie Goodyear didn't ask for this photo to be shared with the entire world.

It seems like people can no longer distinguish between family and friends saying

"lovely photo of nana today" on a text and

"Hey the entire world who may be interested, here is a photo of someone who didn't consent to it being sent out to the world"

I find it really upsetting how many people are willing to use an actual real woman to advance their "we should see photos of people with dementia"/"women shouldn't have to be beautiful" crap. If she wanted that photo of her out there, fair dues to her. But she didn't decide on it. Her husband did.

My Initial thought when I saw the photo was ‘what a shame, she wouldn’t have wanted to be seen like this’ mainly due to her missing teeth. Then I really thought about it. My Mum is in the advanced stages of vascular dementia, trying to take a photo of her for her disabled badge recently was painful, and I cried buckets over the result, my Mum looks so ‘haunted’ for a better word. It is very very rare to get a smile out my Mum these days.

Contrast my recent experience with my Mum to Julie’s photo and I looked at it again with fresh eyes and it made me smile. Yes, she doesn’t resemble anything of the glamorous woman she once was, but she does look happy! And suffering from dementia and able to grin with abandon into a camera is something to be celebrated! Go you Julie, and keep grinning!

Perhaps that is something her husband was trying to show? That despite her illness there’s still a bit of Julie there?

I don't agree. People age at different rates. My parents and my MIL are in their early 80s and look comparable to Julie.

Yes I’ve worked in homes and been a care worker and it’s rare to look like that, she would hate that he’s put it on.

Yep, she looks nowhere like the ‘average’ 83 year old. I can’t believe the difference in how she looks now and in 2019 (pics in a daily mail article from yesterday).

That's it....."consent"
Yes she has dementia, yes she's in her 80's, however her partner has taken it upon himself to post the photo of her.
That is the nub of it for me, she hasn't consented.
I'm sure he regrets it now, because the photo has been taken down.

She looks happy so it's a lovely photo. You're comparing an actress with the blowsy over made-up barmaid character from 30 years ago! I bet she never looked like that in real life, even then.

Actually, she did.
The photo has been taken down, hopefully he now realises it wasn't a thoughtful thing to do.

The public remember her looking glamorous. But that’s our story. Not hers. Not his. People grow old and poorly and change and they are just as valid when they are old and not glamorous. She looks happy. Dementia happy but happy. And this is HIS wife. Not OUR Julie or Bet. If it offends people that’s their issue. There is no shame in having dementia. There should not be any shame in people declaring their love and showing their loved one being joyous just because she no longer looks the way we remember her.
consent is difficult. I don’t know. Should no one with dementia ever be shown in public because they are not able to give consent? I think it’s obvious he was celebrating the woman he loves now. Not stuck in the past. Not only loving the woman as she was. This is Julie now. This is the woman he still treasures and adores. And I found it touching

In that case you should never be able to do anything with or for a dementia sufferer because they are unable to give consent.
not take them for a walk. Not visit a garden. Not take them to a social gathering. Because you haven’t got their consent
she consented to have her picture taken and posted as much as she consents to anything else she does or has done to her. She looks so happy.

OPs post is just as bad as DM click bait really. And no I didn’t go and look, I respect her privacy and if she is unable to consent then it shouldn’t be available to view.

When you care for a person with dementia, you do it for them, not for the whole world to see.
She is not public property, why should he post her pic for the whole world to see?
She chose herself to step away from the public spotlight years ago...he should honour her decision.

I agree, it just drew more attention to the pic that so many more have now seen.
I didn't go and look either, but it came up when I was browsing a news channel.
To be honest, I found the pic really upsetting.

Here’s Julie and several other Corrie actors in their heyday, in an episode set in Mallorca. A real blast from the past.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FXF4sophU&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD

With all her money I would’ve thought she would be cared for privately at home and out of the public gaze. I think she would have hated that photo, yes she looks happy and I hope she is but she couldn’t give consent and she was always a glam lady.
I hope he posted it because she looks happy and because he loves her, rather than for money. It was a bad decision.

Taking her for a walk or to the beach is entirely different.