"This will only reinforce the existing paradigm"

That is exactly what I am afraid of. People have a tendency to cherry pick examples to back up their position while ignoring those that contradict their views. I believe this is called confirmation bias. So they'll hold up Eva's story (and others like it) as evidence that art depicting children is abusive, while conveniently ignoring cases like Sturges' ethical treatment of his models.

That Eva feels this way is unfortunate, and I am very sad to hear it. But as I pointed out in my essay weeks ago, whether or not these particular photos were exploitative has no direct bearing on other photos in other cases, nor does it prove on the whole that photos like these ones cannot be produced ethically. I just hope people will remember that and not put on their blinders, thinking every case must necessarily be like this one.

As you said, the thoughts and feelings of the child(ren) involved are paramount. And these include both their interest in the project before and during its production, as well as their developing attitudes about it afterward. Unfortunately, the current social climate that indiscriminately condemns expression of this sort makes it rather difficult for someone to have a positive attitude about involvement in such a project, without also holding a decidedly adversarial attitude towards mainstream culture.

I would caution the public not to exacerbate the problem by feeding their own beliefs that the subject of the pictures was the cause of distress, when the more important issue is the conditions under which those pictures were taken. And as far as the subject of the pictures is relevant (and it certainly is), condemning such forms of expression only increases the stigma those involved with them have to face - whether they were involved with their consent or without it.

The lesson I would emphasize here is not the importance of ethical practice - because in my mind, that should already go without saying - but rather a warning that anecdote should not dictate sweeping policy.