First off, I'll point out the overarching issue of trying to make a mountain out of a molehill in all of these threads you're creating. It is classic trolling, and its sadly viewed as a fairly transparent one at that. Be careful.
I have friends who were child actors and the vast majority really loved it. I saw some go the Dana Plato route, but quite frankly in no greater numbers than the general population, and almost always with parents or personalities or physical traits that would have been led them to go bad even if the kid wasn't an actor.
Where I could see problems all go back to how the parents dealt with it. Parents have a huge influence: If you stop being a parent--either because you put the kid on a pedestal or start viewing her as simply a job--you're going to be in trouble. I had my kid do modeling when she was a baby, and she's extremely proud of her poster in her room that was in every BabyGap in the world, but some of the parents I ran into doing that *are* completely psychotic, and it can be ugly at times. But these parents would have pushed them too hard in anything, and its the parent's fault (and even with sick parents, a lot of these kids turn out just fine). Eliminating the option because of a few bad apples is really silly.
No laws? You're joking! The restrictions on child actors--which are more a function of SAG and AFTRA rules than the laws which are indeed strict--drive producers up the walls. If movies with kids didn't make so much money, it would not be worth the extended shooting schedules required by the maximum work hours allowed. They are required to have private tutors (who are far better than anything you'll find in schools), and usually movies and shows do *not* have just one child, so there's plenty of opportunity for social interaction, and because they're having to actually work, the ones I've known are far more polite and socially functional than almost anyone.
Premise flawed, logic flawed, conclusion false.
I like my men at my feet,

Buffy