Imagine if you posted photos of your 2-year-old on Facebook and hours later, a friend messaged you to tell you that your child might have cancer.
Well, it happened to Michele Freeman, the mother of 2-year-old Grace Freeman, who had posted photos of her daughter on the social-networking site and who later received a message from her friend, a UK-based pediatrics nurse.
Nicola Sharp noticed that the little girl's pupil in one of her eyes appeared white. She emailed her friend and said it looked like eye cancer (see the photo here). The concerned mother heeded her friend's advice and brought the little girl to the doctor where she was diagnosed with retinoblastoma.
Though the girl lost sight in her eye, the mother is eternally grateful:
"There is no doubt in my mind that Nicola saved Grace's life," she told the Daily Mail. "There were no signs that Grace had any problems with her eyes and we never would have known without her."
With all the concerns over photos of children on blogs and social-networking sites, it's no wonder many parents opt not to put their children online, but maybe it's not the worst idea in the world. After all, 90 percent of the reason to put those photos up is to share with friends and family and, in this case, that instinct saved a little girl's life.
Any pervert can take a photo of your child at a fair or at a park and do whatever he or she wants. It's creepy, but it's a fact. If you refuse to put your children online, do you also refuse to take them to parks and museums and public spaces? If not, you should. In the end, it's the same thing.
Social networking has its downsides -- random Internet crazy commenters, misinterpreting things, political battles -- but photos of children aren't one of them. And in this case, it saved a life.
Do you share your child's photos on Facebook?
Image via Facebook