There is an ethical difference between taking photos of a normal person and a person in distress

In another post on this website, I argued that celebrities should not be treated any differently than a normal person; however, on this blog post, I will be arguing for a group of individuals to be treated differently than the average person. These people are people in distress and this can range from many topics. It is unethical to take a picture of a family whose son just got diagnosed with cancer, it is unethical for reporters to take photographs of a soldier's body who just died, it is unethical for someone to take a photo of a car accident with people trapped in the car, and it is unethical in many other situations where normally taking a picture at that location would be ok. There are two reasons for this, the first is that if you can take a picture in theory you should be able to help the person or group in distress however that is not always true. The second reason this is unethical is that the person being documented is in a situation they do not feel comfortable with, and that should not be recorded and spread to the world as it will most likely make their situation worse. Some will argue that the documentation of many disastrous events must be recorded for documentation including war and terrorist attacks like 9/11 and I agree. I do think though that they can be documented in a way that does not put the victims in a spotlight that will do nothing but hurt them. One idea is by making the documentation not about the individuals but about the event so avoid taking photographs of the victims but instead of the scene as a whole. Overall a disastrous scenario will affect the ethics behind taking photographs but it varies from case to case but one must be aware that it does vary.