Wanting to stop the exploitation of young children is laudable, but I’m not sure that setting a minimum age for appearing on television is the best way to go about it. We should step back and look at what these parenting programmes intend to achieve.

If the aim is to benefit both the participants and the viewers, then surely a programme should get the benefit of the doubt — as long as we are clear about what we mean by “benefit”.

The most common “benefit” a TV programme offers is to entertain and amuse its viewers, and to pay its participants and/or allow them the opportunity to appear on TV. These are not sufficient for a programme to be defined as educational. But what if a producer claims that the aim is to educate and improve the parenting skills of participants and viewers? Is this not sufficient justification for broadcasting a programme? Surely the children involved would benefit?

Well, not necessarily. We then have to define what makes a “competent” or “capable” parent. And if we knew what that was, we wouldn’t have the fierce arguments about the “right” way to bring up a child.

I suggest that producers ask the following questions of each programme that is proposed:

1. Could the methods offered on this programme harm any of its participants or its viewers? If so, the programme should be scrapped.

2. Are the experts involved adequately trained?

3. Does this programme aim to promote competence in the art of parenting?

4. Does it encourage a sense of enjoyment, trust and warmth, both in its participants and in its viewers?

If the answer to these last three questions is “yes”, we’re on to a winner, regardless of the age of the participants.

Linda Blair is a clinical psychologist and an associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society

Editor's choice

• The 100 Best Films of the Decade
• 70 facts you didn't know about Marvel
• The 50 Biggest Movies Of 2010