Sure, but to error on the side of caution is the better bet, when it comes to drilling holes into.babies heads...well for me anyway...
What other product are we implanting in babies on a mass scale using the above logic?
Is that really the pitch to parents?"we dont have data either way"
The first implants into babies were done in france against medical opposition by leading surgeons, its important to get a handle of the ideology that drives it, obviously it had no data to back the cliams up, and still hardly doesnt regarding the shower of lavish oppurtunities that awaits an implanted baby if and only if the baby is implanted..now 25 years on some data will.exist,but when implants were first pushed none did.
Its interesting because the ci industry resembles big pharma in every way, how it markets, and manufactures needs to be purchased so on, and im sure big pharma has its adherents too.
The big idea and paradigm shift big pharma brought to advertising was the idea not to market the product alone. but instead to market the illness. The idea was advertising to product wasnt generating the return....if you market the symptoms...the illness, people will start to actually see them..and thus want the product, regardless if they truly need it or not. its a cheap parlour trick in advertising ci also uses, thus the entire idea of fixing, and ignoring already present solutions so on.
To bring this back
Its almost absurd one would justify an implant by stating we have no data either way.
Unless thats a sandard now in medical science
There are never going to be guarantees with implants, nor probably agreement about whether they're appropriate. All parents don't agree on immunizations or many other decisions regarding health. Most parents just try to give their kids the best chance of success as they see it but that's going to mean different things to every parent. Just as sending a child to an expensive school is no guarantee they'll get into Harvard, implants don't guarantee that a child will be more successful, but nothing else will either. That isn't going to stop parents from spending money in the hope it will improve their children's odds to have a better life.
Unless implants are shown to not be effective for any child, or to be very dangerous, why would parents not consider them just as they do other things? Kids have their tonsils out and other medical procedures even with a slight risk of death or complications, kids climb trees and skateboard and do all kinds of things more risky than getting implanted.
Some parents are going to decide to have their children implanted and that's not likely to change as long as at least some children benefit from them and as long as their children are eligible. No choices a parent makes come with a guarantee.