Controversial Ad Sparks Debate

What do you think of the anti-smoking ad that’s appearing in New York City? The one where the 4-year-old boy was brought to real-life tears when he was separated from his real-life mother?

The ad is being run by the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. In it, a small boy loses sight of his mother in a train station or an airport (I couldn’t tell which). At first, the boy looks confused, but then he starts to panic and begins to cry. Tears streaming from his eyes, he continues to sob and look around, then a voice says, “This is how your child feels after losing you for a minute. Just imagine if they lost you for life.”

You can view the ad at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene website. Here’s what they say about the ad on the website, “Imagine how your child would feel if they lost you forever. This is the message of a new educational media campaign to get parents who smoke to think twice about the possible consequences of this deadly addiction. About 400,000 New York City adults who smoke live with a child. Sadly, smoking takes the lives of 8,000 adults each year in the city, many of whom leave children behind. New Yorkers are urged to quit smoking and to call 311 if they need help.”

I have mixed feelings about the ad. I’m a non-smoker and sometimes when I’m driving I’ll see people smoking in a car with the windows up and children in the back. Maybe I’m sensitive, but it upsets me, especially when the child is really young.

Growing up, my father smoked. As people became more aware of the impact second-hand smoke has on those living with a smoker, my father smoked less in the house. The details are blurry now since it’s so long ago, I can tell you that I worried about a premature death caused by smoking as soon as I learned of the dangers. At 46, my father had his first heart attack and hasn’t smoked since. I’m especially puzzled, by young people who smoke, knowing the dangers are well publicized and documented. My 34-year-old brother is a perfect example. Why do something you know is so harmful and such a waste of money? I know addiction is a terrible thing, but there comes a time when you have to stop and value your life enough to quit.

Going back to the ad, I feel conflicted. I’ve been questioning the methods used to get the boy to cry, yet…the publicity it’s receiving is frankly good for the cause. Let’s face it, if it makes people stop to think about the very real possibly that parents can die young, leaving their children behind, as a result of smoking (not to mention the second hand-smoke issue!) then I’d say it’s working.

According to Fiona Sharkey, the executive director of Quit, the Australian anti-smoking organization that created the ad, the only time Alexander (the young boy in the ad) cried was during that one shot, when he couldn't find his mom.

“Toward the end, he lost sight of his mother, and he did shed some real tears … but it was a very brief moment,” she said to Matt Lauer on Today this morning.  She also mentioned that Australian child-protection officials were on hand at all times.

Having said that, I don’t think it’s ever OK to traumatize a child for any reason. So I ask, how traumatized was he? Will he suffer irrevocable damage? While I’m certain I wouldn’t allow the producers to do such a thing with my son, I ask  who’s really to blame? I'd say the parents, not the producers. And again, will it create any long-term damage, if not, then might people be overreacting?

On the flip side, did it have an impact? If quit-smoking lines received an increased number of calls after the ad aired, then it was effective. "In order to motivate someone to quit, you have to provoke a strong emotional response," said Jenna Mandel-Ricci, director of special projects for the city Department of Health. "If we run ads that people don't remember or that don't affect people, then people won't call for help."

What do you think? Did producers go too far?

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites