This show will probably do more to deter teenage viewers from becoming parents than all the parental and societal lecturing in the world.

Naturally the crackpots at the APA are in hysterics over the thought that a kid might "endure" five minutes of diaper rash or not listening to Baby Einstein CDs.

I question whether anybody involved with yelling about this show has actually watched it. The parents watch the entire time on a closed-circuit monitor, and they are free to break in any time they're concerned (and they freely do, over very small things). It certainly appears to me as if it's actually LESS dangerous to these babies and toddlers than being babysat by neighborhood teenagers, which has been accepted practice forever. There are nannies standing by at all times just on the off-chance that somebody actually does something bad. I simply do not believe that anyone's well-being is imperiled by being babysat for a couple of days at a time while supervised by a nanny and HIS OWN PARENTS. It's very glamorous to get all upset about this because it's on television, but if you called it by the more accurate name "The Babysitters" instead of "The Baby Borrowers," which falsely suggests they're left alone with the babies, it wouldn't be such a scandal.

re: the sarcastic crack about Dr. Drew being a "paragon of medical ethics". I don't know much about Dr. Drew besides remembering him to be the sane voice on "Love Line", with dipshit co-host Adam Corolla. I don't know of anything that would implicate him as unethical (except maybe his participation in this particular show; but the comment indicates that there is some previous reason for the smart ass comment).

If so, please can someone explain. Maybe I'm just ignorant of the circumstances. Thanks.

I know nothing of this show other than the one, 15-sec promo I've seen for it, but OBVIOUSLY this show does not involve ploping infants down with unprepared teenagers and telling them to go to town. In today's litigious society, with as big a pot of money to go after as NBC? The idea is patently laughable. Not to mention, most parents of infants and toddlers would never agree to such a thing even apart from the potential for lawsuits. There is no way the infants are not under round the clock surveillance, with parents and NBC staff and/or child psychologists and/or nurses capable of attending to them immediately.

It's a heck of a lot safer than normal babysitting, and nobody ever wails about the severe emotional abuse inflicted upon a toddler when you leave it with a grandparent or babysitter for a weekend.

Networks promoting idiotic tv shows from the latest "reality" drivel to pro wrestling could release statements from various groups condemning their programming.

Got a show that portrays gays in a bad light that provoked a negative response from the GLA? Great! Run that baby!

Got a new game show that insults Jews? Hang that angry letter from the ADL right on the wall in its own frame, baby, solid gold.

The objections seem to be two-fold:

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.

The concerns about child safety in the hands of inexperienced strangers is only one part of it.

I agree that children shouldn't be used as props, but "The Baby Borrowers" is hardly the only thing guilty of that. I'd also go after Anne Geddes.

While I mostly agree with the other comments that the toddlers and infants are not in any real harm, there was one clip I saw where one of the teenage "parents" literally dragged a child across the floor by his arm. Yes, the real parents can step in anytime they want and maybe it is no worse than leaving your child with a babysitter, but it is still an inanely ridiculous show and I doubt it will do much to help reduce teen pregnancy in this country.

Plus, most responsible parents select a babysitter that they at least know and trust to some degree. Here, you just get stuck with random, immature kids looking after your baby. If you ask me, no one featured on this program, teenagers or adults, is responsible and mature.

The couple who had to pretend to tend to a teenager wound up 'divorced'. That is the ultimate truth. Teenagers suck. Even they think so.

"But, but, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

Okay, you castigate NBC, calling the press release "vile." But you wrote about that horrible program, drawing attention to it, which presumably is precisely what NBC had in mind. Sometimes the very best thing to do in the face of atrocious behavior is to ignore it, not to publicize it. Sounds to me like NBC 1, Salon 0.

Didn't they promote it by saying "It's not a show, it's birth control!" or something to that effect?

That sounds great to me.

Thank you, NBC. Thanks to the title of this filler program, I've remembered 'The Borrowers' books and added them to the list of books I'll be reading to my daughters when they're a bit older.

It's called "babysitting."

Since when did that become harmful?