Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

this is once of those things where I'm 90% confident it isn't actually harmful to a young child...

...and yet if I had a child, I wouldn't expose them to tablets at a young age, just because that 10% is scary.



sort by: page size:

The product doesn't lead to children dying. It increases the risk of a certain type of fatality when used improperly, with the overall odds still being miniscule.

And yes, parents have to take some responsibility. Nothing will ever be 100% safe.


On the flip side, I can see some potential bad outcomes for young children being exposed to this.

he says probably, I would not personally risk doing it if I am not 100% sure it's safe. I mean babies don't really need it , why risk it for something that is hardly providing any benefit for a child.

But it is toxic and dangerous and exploits you. It's also a very valuable tool. As with all things, there's a cost/benefit calculation to be done here.

I think that the cost/benefit ratio is hugely unfavorable when we're talking about very young children.


It sure does seem risky to give children something for which the long-term risks are unknown. I’d hate to think people have been doing that in recent years.

Exactly. Unknown risks. Unknown benefits. But let's medicate the kids.

I think we should do little placebo trials at home. Not double blind, obviously. But still the risks are known (none, except character damage maybe).


I'm a parent who's scared about my child's potential need for this. We're just entering the diagnosis pipeline now. I'd like to give you an opportunity to convince me that I shouldn't be resisting that sort of thing, which is my (admittedly somewhat unfounded) reaction.

I wouldn't want my kids exposed to this stuff. I don't want them to learn this as desirable behavior.

I will not say it is safe for you to use or not. But the reason for that and many of the "don't let children near it" is better be safe and make it user error than take an useless risk. In particular, I'm sure there are very little if any studies on the effects of that tech on children, for obvious reasons.

""Some people were administering it to their kids," he says. "

WTF , fair enough if you want to risk it on yourself but not your children with still developing brains.


Oddly, I can agree it is more deadly for children, while still knowing it is not the likely reason for my kids to be in danger...

Are you seriously trying to suggest that it's equivalently risky giving a 10 year old a phone or heroin?

That's scary - my children would do that naturally and I'm not sure I would be able to convince them of the seriousness of it beforehand.

> I’ve see kids as young as 3 compulsively watching rubberized tablets under bleachers, in cars, etc.

Arguably child abuse. It will be seen as giving a 3 yr old a cigarette or a beer.


Hey, let them have it if they want it so badly. But they should not convince younger ones that it’s not a danger though!!!

Yes, this is troubling. I'm generally not against medication, but giving it to children without exactly knowing how it affects their personality long-term is a very gray area.

What do you mean, these pills that make my kids suddenly have A grades and fun to hang out with are not risk free??

Not that I know. Bad wording from my side, I was only thinking about teens (like the case of the author). Some day research might tell us, until then, you better avoid a risk to your child.

I think Skoofoo is spot on.


By that analogy, most drugs are not suitable for children, and for the ones that are it's never good to allow a child to self-medicate. It's always an adult giving ibuprofen to a child when he has a fever, not giving the child a 100 pill bottle and telling him to go play.
next

Legal | privacy