Douglas Purl ended a thoughtful and porovoking post thus:

>I am sensible of the argument that the results justify the means.  "You
>will thank me someday for the abuses I inflict on you now."  It is the
>binding of feet.

I, too, wonder at the ethics of pressuring children to do anything - I
find the sight of female gymnasts who are barely in their teens almost
as repugnant as their fawning mothers and their grim determination to
get their children to the top no matter what.

For me the term "prodigy" implies somebody who emerges spontaneously - not
somebody who is "forced fed" like some goose in France.  Only yesterday I
saw a report of a young British boy - aged ten - who is considered one of
the world's most astounding chess talents.  His ambition? To become the
youngest grand master ever.  He had started playing at the age of three -
because "he knew how".

In the film "Good Will Hunting," the young maths genius tries to explain
his gift: he compares himself to Beethoven and says that Beethoven needed
nobody to explain the piano to him, he knew what to do with it
instinctively.

It is this word "instinctively" which is missing in the Sazuki method.
It your success rate is, say, 2% - then economy of scale comes into play.
2% of 10 is much less than 2% of ten thousand.  It reminds me of the
breeding of greyhounds for the race track: breed as many litters as
possible, and if the dog doesn't run, then have it put down.

The ethics of forcing children to follow any career because their parents
want them to is an issue which has been with us since time immemorial.  It
will be with us even longer if there are opportunities to foster a career
in anything which is high profile.

Jonathan