Monuments for stillborn children and disenfranchised grief in the Netherlands Recognition, protest and solace
Open accessAbstract
In the Netherlands, until the years mid eighty of the previous century, in accordance with the so called ‘breaking bonds’ paradigm at the time, children who had died around birth, were immediately separated from the parents. There and above, Roman Catholic rules dictated that children who had not been baptized before they died, would be buried anonymously in hideaway, and in the unconsecrated grounds of the graveyard. This article discusses these parents and their stillborn children. Their loss and grief remained for a long time unacknowledged, resulting in feelings of disenfranchised grief. These feelings increased as a result of the shift of paradigm into continuing bonds with a deceased, developing into the nowadays empathic and intimate contact between parents and stillborn children. With the emergence as of the year 2000 of monuments to stillborn children (in the Netherlands around 160 in total),monuments have become a strategy to cope with feelings of disenfranchised grief.This article concludes that parents of stillborn children benefit from an honourable place to commemorate and pay respect to their long-time publicly neglected child.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Since Doka first posited the possibility of disenfranchised grief after miscarriage and abortion, events of pregnancy loss and perinatal loss in several contexts have been analysed as producing disenfranchised grief.
“Since Doka first posited the possibility of disenfranchised grief after miscarriage and abortion, events of pregnancy loss and perinatal loss in several contexts have been analysed as producing disenfranchised grief (Cassidy, 2021; Faro, 2020; Hazen, 2003; Lafarge et al., 2019; Lang et al., 2011).”
From Further Hierarchies of Loss: Tracking Relationality in Pregnancy Loss Experiences (2025) · cites this paper as Faro, 2020
Cites
Perinatal Loss and Parental Grief: The Challenge of Ambiguity and Disenfranchised Grief
Lang, A., Fleiszer, A. R., Duhamel, F., Sword, W., Gilbert, K. R., & Corsini-Munt, S. (2011) · OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · doi:10.2190/om.63.2.e · Cited by 239 · see citing works
The Unique Experiences of Women and Their Families After the Death of a Baby
Cacciatore, J. (2010) · Social Work in Health Care · doi:10.1080/00981380903158078 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Further Hierarchies of Loss: Tracking Relationality in Pregnancy Loss Experiences
Middlemiss, A. L., & Kilshaw, S. (2025) · OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · doi:10.1177/00302228231182273 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Faro, L.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Faro, Laurie
- Venue
- Mortality
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-06-24
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 264-283
- ISSN
- 1357-6275 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-9885
- OpenAlex
- W3038042944
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 14 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 4.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Mortality (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Memory, Trauma, and Commemoration
- Keywords
- stillbirth, disenfranchised grief, commemoration, continuing bonds, parental grief, coping with loss, Netherlands
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review