More to Say About Baby Borrowers
Yesterday I was interviewed on behalf of the American Psychiatric Association by NBC6 Health correspondent Diana Gonzalez about the controversial reality show: “Baby Borrowers.” I had previously watched a disconcerting commercial a few days earlier, showing the despair of little ones as they cried, vomited, or were about to be crushed by falling furniture as teenage couples struggled to care for them, also in despair. A brief clip of what I said was aired (30 seconds, maybe?) out of a twenty-minute long interview. I had a lot more to say:
Parents “loaned, lent, or provided” their young children for this experiment: for three days, these infants and toddlers were subjected to the care giving skills - or total lack of them - of teenage couples trying to care for them. The producers claim to have conducted psychological testing on the teenage couples (I wonder if the same testing was conducted on the parents who “donated” their children for the social experiment, they claim they didn’t receive any financial compensation). I also wonder if any psychiatrist or psychology expert advisor alerted NBC producers and parents of the potential harm done to young children while poorly prepared teenagers tried to care for them for three days. Let me add that most of these teenagers would scream at each other and slam doors in front of the panicked-looking children. Although the parents claimed they always watched their children via a monitor in the next room, the infant or child - let’s call him or her the “collateral research subject” of the experiment - was obviously unaware that the parents were watching (remember peek-a-boo? In short: infants are unable to understand object permanence or that their parents are next door). These children were, by all means, subjected to caregivers with poor parenting skills. I wonder if anyone with some psychological background or common sense would have alerted the producers that these children could be subjected to intense feelings of fear, abandonment, despair and, from what a general audience could see, plain negligence at times (what would have happened if the furniture had fallen on the toddler in the brief commercial I watched?) There is a wide range of what the little ones may experience in the near and long-term future, ranging from stress and fear to plain post traumatic stress.
While reports of the parents stating: “What’s the big deal if the children cry, they would cry anyways?” my counter question is: “Why would we expose a healthy child to an unnecessary stressful situation or, on the other hand, if the child may already be anxious, why expose him or her to an unnecessary anxiety-provoking situation?” The parents who loaned their children for this experiment may feel that they did the right thing for different reasons: some claim they would do anything to help prevent teen pregnancy, others may feel it’s cute to see their child on television, and others may feel their baby will benefit from this experience in some unusual way.
As parents, we have the obligation to provide for a safe environment for our children. When would we give our consent for our children to participate in any activity or study? Parents are asked for their consent to allow their children to participate in medical interventions or research studies if their child is ill and the parents need to make the tough decision of providing for appropriate care while there may be some risk to the child. The important factor in consenting to any research with human subjects is that the person who participates should have direct benefit. While the show claims to be a social experiment, the children do not benefit in any way from participating. The parents may benefit, the teenagers’ benefit is questionable, but using children as props is unacceptable.
The APA issued this statement:
“The American Psychiatric Association deplores the use of babies and toddlers as props or experimental subjects for a television program. It is inappropriate and sometimes harmful to remove very young children from their families and familiar environments, and the level of harm may not be apparent on simple observation. Since the program is meant to reveal whether or not the ‘borrowers’ are competent to care for these children, at least some of the children will have been exposed to incompetent and confused caregivers, and to whatever problematic situations arose as the caregivers struggled with each other. We urge NBC never to repeat this misuse of children; not to allow reruns to air; and to use every means to discourage the use of episodes in parenting classes or other venues where they might well be shown.”
Tags: anxiety, baby borrowers, benefit, consent, fear, psychology, reality show, research, stress
August 8th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I appreciate the comments to my blog. My comments are based on my experience as a medical doctor, a practicing psychiatrist, a public educator working with the media for many years, and a clinical researcher. I fully support the American Psychiatric Association’s decision to issue their statement to protect children from being used in these kinds of shows.