There is a difficult ethical dilemma inherent in the use of juveniles in show business. Drama on stage, screen and television often involves children, but the physical, mental, social and emotional demands of professional performing are perilous to them. The fact that many come through the experience undamaged doesn't mitigate the tragedies of the many who don't. The abused, exploited or emotionally warped child star has become a cultural cliché, made vivid be an uninterrupted parade that stretches from Jackie Coogan and Judy Garland to Tatum O'Neal and Jay North to Michael Jackson and Gary Coleman.

One could argue persuasively that minors should be banned from professional performing for their own protection. But the roles are there, the parents are eager, and the public enjoys watching juvenile stars perform more than it worries about what happens to them after the applause stops. In ethical terms, the non-ethical considerations---money, fame, career, entertainment, tradition, art---are just too numerous and powerful for ethical considerations to triumph. Child performers are here to stay.

And they need protection. For decades, a dedicated and selfless man named Paul Petersen has served as friend, advocate, advisor, spokesman, role model and champion for both current and former juvenile stars. Together with his wife, Petersen runs a unique organization called A Minor Consideration. Quoting the organization's website, which you can find at https://minorcon.org:

"A Minor Consideration" is a non-profit, tax-deductible organization formed to give aid and support to young performers---past, present and future. Children in the entertainment industry are subjected to unique pressures, and many times the images they create outlast the money and the fame. There are consequences to early fame, and several generations of former child stars have joined together to reorganize the structure that surrounds the most visible children in our society. Solid parenting can overcome most of the difficulties faced by young performers, but a child star must pick their parents with care. family education is the key ingredient and the members of A Minor Consideration are always "on call" to assist parents and their professional children on a no cost basis. By providing a strong emphasis on education and helping to preserve the money these children generate the members of A Minor Consideration are always available to help in the tricky transition issues that for many kid stars prove to be so troubling…"

Paul Petersen knows his mission well, for he is a former child star himself, the actor who played "Jeff Stone" on TV's long-running "The Donna Reed Show" co-starring with the late Carl Betz, Shelley Fabares and Reed herself. His task is a daunting and often painful one, as the ranks of those needing his help keep expanding, and the deaths of former stars too often remind him of how much still needs to be accomplished before the job of professional actor can truly be said to be fit for children.

It certainly isn't now. A shocking article Petersen posted on his website alerted The Ethics Scoreboard to a recent horrendous incident involving talented young actress Dakota Fanning, who has rapidly progressed through the standard dog and horse movies and big-budget kid films like "The Cat in the Hat" to flashy dramatic roles in movies like "Hide and Seek" and "War of the Worlds." Such is her ability and screen presence that most critics expect Fanning to make a smooth transition from child star to adult superstar, in the tradition of Elizabeth Taylor, Natalie Wood, Diane Lane and Reese Witherspoon. Now 12, she is starring in an upcoming film called "Hounddog." The story involves the journey of a young girl who is violently raped as at the age of nine. The rape scene isn't merely implied, suggested or discussed; it is shown on screen. And twelve year-old Fanning was not replaced for the filming of the rape with an adult double, as William Friedkin replaced 13 year-old Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" for the infamous crucifix scene as well as others. No, the director of "Hounddog" had Fanning act the rape scene herself.

With her mother watching. And her agent.

For ethical analysis purposes, let's make the situation clear. Fanning, at 12, cannot decide whether doing such a scene is appropriate for her. It is not the first time she has portrayed the victim of sexual abuse; before her film career began, "CSI" cast Dakota as a seven year-old offspring of incest who was being abused by her father. She is a precocious film veteran, and probably has already absorbed the professional actor's ethic that it is her job to perform any role, no matter how strenuous or disagreeable. But she is a child first; her judgement is still the judgement of a child, and the adults around her owe her a duty of care. They are ethically obligated to consider her emotional health and mental development as higher priorities than artistic achievement, critical acclaim or career advancement.

The Scoreboard assumes that it does not have to make the argument that an adult asking, telling, ordering, paying, encouraging or allowing a twelve year-old girl to participate in the portrayal of a simulated rape is unethical and wrong. Or that doing so is infinitely more unethical when the adult is the girl's parent, a figure of trust.

Is it criminal as well? The artistic community has thoroughly cowed law enforcement officials when it comes to enforcing laws violated in the name of art, and non-ethical considerations come into play with steroids. Millions of dollars can swell a city's coffers if it becomes a popular venue for film-making, and arresting film crews and directors is likely to have serious financial consequences. So far, although Wilmington, North Carolina officials are aware of the controversial child rape scene that was filmed in their back yard, there has been no complaint and no investigation. Petersen makes a strong argument in his article that the simulated rape for film is illegal under federal child pornography laws, citing Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. 2256 defines "Child pornography" as:

"…any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -

(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ."

Whether it is illegal or not, however, the likelihood of legal consequences should not have to enter into the decision-making process of any responsible adult in the position of Fanning's mother, agent or director. A local radio show called The Blue Line, hosted by Mark Benson, reported that the filming was so graphic and disturbing that the film crew walked off the set, unable to watch. Interestingly, Fanning's mother didn't have such qualms, and she has been quoted as saying that she is excited about the prospect of her daughter getting an Oscar for her work in "Hounddog".

Perhaps no statement better illustrates the reason why Paul Petersen's work is so important, and why child actors are in such peril. Their talents can hold the potential for so many rewards that even a parent may become obsessed with mining those treasures, ignoring the vulnerabilities and needs of their own developing child. The law has to be responsive, but if children have to rely on the law to persuade parents not to exchange their offspring's emotional health for the most attractive offer, their safety is an illusion. Our culture, the entertainment industry, the media and the public have to understand and believe that such treatment is wrong, and refuse to tolerate it…not in the name of art, not in the name of "personal freedom," not in the name of commerce, not for anything.

How do we accomplish this as a society that claims to care about children?

Paying attention to Paul Petersen is a good place to start.