[originally appeared in
SFGate City Brights] Okay, take a moment in the midst of your Michael Jackson sorrow and let's think, together, like epidemiologists here:
We in developed countries banned child labor for many reasons - but one of the primary reasons is the adverse health effects of child labor. One of the Victorian industries that objected the hardest to child labor bans was that of chimney sweeps - the argument being that only tiny humans (read: children) could fit inside a chimney. But then a scientist discovered the link in 1775 between being
a child chimney sweep - and scrotal cancer from constant exposure to charcoal dust in trousers. This occupational-disease association was the beginning of child labor bans across industries.
Hundreds of years later, we've got a lone industry holdout which has remained exempt in developed countries - the entertainment industry. Even with restrictions on the hours worked, no other industry is allowed to employ children and babies.
Why should this child labor be stopped? I would suggest a hypothesis - that we have a clear association, like that of charcoal dust and cancer, between childhood exposure to
fame and early death. I also would argue that the toxic exposure to fame is dose-dependent. Which is to say - the more famous you are as a child, the more likely you are to have a bad outcome. I would further argue that, like other reasons we've banned child labor in industries, there is also a developmental effect. In other words, the younger you are exposed to this toxic substance (fame), the greater your chances of a bad outcome.
If you view fame as a childhood poison, like asbestos, or charcoal dust, fame acts with life-shortening effect, and its impact is magnified by higher doses and earlier exposures. This is a potent epidemiologic argument for extending our current child labor ban to include our last holdout - the entertainment industry.
I would further argue that, besides early death, fame has a dose-dependent, and age-dependent association (perhaps causality) for two other highly destructive outcomes - substance abuse and mental health disorders. These high rates are also likely increased by earlier exposure to fame. While delaying the exposure to fame until adulthood may not completely prevent fame's destructive effects, it is likely that many vulnerable people will be more resistant at a later age. Furthermore, an adult can make informed decisions about fame exposure in a way that children are incapable of doing. There is also considerable anecdotal evidence that a child who is subjected to intense fame becomes developmentally delayed at the first age of exposure, resulting in delayed or even arrested maturation. The famous person is, for all intents and purposes, arrested at the age of earliest fame, lacking age-appropriate maturity, insight and/or impulse control.
In fact, you could, from an epidemiologic standpoint, argue that we, as a society, by allowing child-labor in the entertainment industry, are enabling, if not
causing, the early death and destruction of our most gifted members.
What are the opposing arguments for treating the entertainment industry like every other industry? First, there is, of course, the profit angle. In particular, not just the industry's profits, but the parent's profit. These same arguments historically were used to try to prevent child labor bans in other industries, and are still used today to stymie child labor bans in developing countries.
Second, there is the argument that a talented person "wants" to be famous as a child. From an ethics standpoint, however, we as a society often restrict and severely limit children's desires for their own good - both individually and as a group.
Finally, there is, of course, what I would call the Disney effect - which is to say that
our children want to see other children singing and dancing and acting. But is that a sufficient justification for the widespread destruction of talented lives?
I would suggest that, at a minimum, an appropriate legacy for the sad tale of Michael Jackson's death would be a Screen Actors' Guild-RIAA music industry-CDC joint prospective study. If children are to be used in the entertainment industry, it is past time we tracked their health outcomes over time. The results may be shocking - and the study would not be hard to do. Assessing fame is quite simple these days - entire businesses are devoted to measuring it in precise detail. A long-term, longitudinal study looking at the effects of early, dose-dependent fame exposure is the least we as a society owe to the memory of this talented, and tortured, individual - Michael Jackson.
So do you think fame is toxic to children? Should we restrict or track children in the entertainment industry? Weigh in with the comments section. If you want to advocate for protecting children in the entertainment industry, you can go to a
page at my website and send an email.
You can read more from Doc Gurley at her website:
www.docgurley.com
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uwLBVip5vOP8CRRcH5EStPhR6WCclOPBExmagh1k9uqrmGSe4MP7uusF_DQHpHJat4YFg7nu9-NwpvTnup0AXOX1tTWly2KVGxnVQE0B9i6hdd_k9rL29x_WxZwLTIbNJQ2icZvRMqKLgG91oMr3ht=s0-d)
