Back

In conclusion, these platforms do more than fail to address the real issues at hand—they risk normalizing unnecessary professional intervention for typical adolescent challenges. Just as we’ve seen with products like e-cigarettes, where the promotion of something “less harmful” led to unintended widespread usage among non-smokers, mental health platforms for minors could encourage reliance on services when they aren’t needed. The long-term impact could be a generation that views emotional struggles as problems that need medical solutions, rather than natural phases of development. We must be cautious not to introduce interventions that could inadvertently create more harm than good.

Platforms that allow under-18s to access these services could potentially do more harm than good, leading to over-medicalization of childhood experiences and creating problems where there are none. It’s especially concerning that such services might be more appealing to families in higher socio-economic groups, where parental neglect or a desire to project a certain status could fuel the demand for these platforms. see next

Furthermore, the introduction of platforms like this could have unintended consequences similar to those we’ve seen with e-cigarettes. Just as non-smokers began using e-cigarettes after their promotion as a “healthier” alternative to traditional smoking—despite the risks—mental health platforms for children could normalize seeking professional treatment for every emotional upset, even when it’s not warranted. This could lead to an increase in dependency on mental health services where they aren’t necessary, making it a slippery slope towards over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatments. see next