The recent death of Presley Gerber has stayed with me. As a mother, I think of the pain his family must carry. There is no simple recovery from losing a child. His death has also made me think more deeply about young people who struggle with their mental health, about addiction, and about the world we ask them to grow up in.

Nobody wants to be an addict. Yet when a young person is struggling, adults are often quick to call them weak, undisciplined or part of a “soft generation.” We should be slower to judge and braver about asking what we have placed around them.

Adults created social media. Adults built platforms that can turn friendship, appearance and achievement into a constant public comparison. Adults made substances widely available and shaped the rules that govern them. We introduced technologies and freedoms faster than we developed safeguards for young minds. Our children did not design this environment. They inherited it.

A young person may feel pressure to succeed, to be attractive, to belong and to seem happy at all times. Some turn to alcohol or drugs in an attempt to escape feelings they cannot explain or manage. Addiction is not proof that someone is morally worthless. It is a serious struggle that calls for prevention, treatment and human understanding.

Governments around the world must ask themselves an uncomfortable question: Are the measures we have put in place serious enough to protect young people? It is easy to celebrate being open, modern and progressive. It is harder to examine the consequences of our decisions honestly, especially for children and young adults who are still learning to judge risk.

Freedom matters. So does protection. A society can value individual choice while setting firm safeguards around the young. It can examine how substances are marketed and accessed, how social media platforms are designed, how quickly mental health care can be obtained, and whether laws against exploitation and illegal drug supply are actually enforced. Calling a society free means little if its young people are left alone with pressures they are not equipped to bear.

Nor can we place the entire burden on parents. Mothers and fathers must listen, guide and set boundaries. But a family is not more powerful than every platform, market and social pressure a young person encounters. Parents need governments, schools and universities to take their share of responsibility.

Education should develop judgment and character, as well as academic achievement. A young person in distress should know where to turn and trust that someone will respond. Prevention cannot consist of a poster, a slogan or an awareness week. It must be visible in daily life: in access to counselling, in clear standards of conduct, in early intervention and in adults willing to act.

I do not believe compassion means excusing every choice. Young people need limits and accountability. But discipline without understanding can drive suffering into silence, while sympathy without action leaves the danger in place. We owe them both care and protection.

Before we complain about a “soft generation,” we should ask what kind of world our generation built for them. Before we blame a young person for becoming addicted, we should ask whether help was available when they first began to struggle. And before governments congratulate themselves on being open and progressive, they should ask the young people living with their policies whether they feel safe.

Our children and young adults deserve more than our concern after a tragedy. They deserve serious protection while there is still time to help them.