Canadian Medical Journal - Outlaw Spanking

[hoipolloi]

An editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal says that spanking is a sign of poor parenting, is ineffective, and that any justification for it should be removed from the Criminal Code of Canada (http://www.cmaj.ca/content/184/12/1339).

...the question of whether spanking is morally “right or wrong†is probably intractable. A more promising line of enquiry, however, is whether the physical punishment of children is effective.

In a related article, Durrant and Ensom4 summarize research done over the last 20 years suggesting that the physical punishment of children is associated with increased levels of child aggression and is no better at eliciting compliance than other methods. Furthermore, physical punishment during childhood is associated with behavioural problems in adult life, including depression, unhappiness, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, use of drugs and alcohol, and general psychological maladjustment. Their article may appear slanted toward a particular view, but that is likely because more evidence exists to support this view than to suggest that physical punishment is beneficial.

Supporters of spanking may argue that it is a question of degree and that spanking is beneficial unless practised to excess. This is possible, but it has always struck me that people using this line of reasoning in the face of clear evidence of harm are really trying to justify their actions, rather than face the possibility that they might be wrong....To have a specific [legal] code excusing parents is to suggest that assault by a parent is a normal and accepted part of bringing up children. It is not. While section 43 [of the Criminal Code of Canada] stands, it is a constant excuse for parents to cling to an ineffective method of child discipline when better approaches are available. It is time for Canada to remove this anachronistic excuse for poor parenting from the statute book.

The Globe & Mail (Canada's major daily paper) has an article on it (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/par ... le4518670/) and the comments section is at 550+ and counting. Unfortunately, it appears that the Pearl-ite garbage about "good" spankings has oozed over the US border:

Scenic Sask!

8:52 PM on September 4, 2012

From the article, the CMA says spanking is an "anachronistic excuse for poor parenting".

That is TOTAL BS!

Beating, belting, anything that leaves welts or emotional trauma is poor parenting.

GOOD parenting is the idea that if you misbehave you will be spanked. That is all it takes to give your children the guidelines they need.

The key is to consistently have rules, love and respect for your kids, who will then have respect for you.

The spanking doesn't hurt them physically but it hurts them in that they have let you down.

I_Bark_not_Bite

8:59 PM on September 4, 2012

Exactly. A good spanking never hurts--it startles the child out of the bad behaviour. It is an effective demarkation line between the bad behaviour. It stops the child long enough for the explanation to follow..and sink in.

Report Abuse

[Maude]

I'm glad the CMA has come down on the side against spanking, but it still seems like this is one debate that's unwinnable. It's so ingrained in our culture. I've heard people say that if you hit a child and they [still] don't listen, you didn't hit them hard enough. I kid you not. If it's not acceptable to hit another adult for misbehaving, why is it okay to hit a child? It makes no sense, especially since a child is a lot smaller. :evil:

[aubrietta]

thanks for bringing this to my attention. I just posted it to my facebook. Now I'm just waiting for the fireworks and hate mail to begin.

[charizbarb]

I myself wouldn't spank but I don't think spanking is harmful enough to be worth outlawing, and so many parents who are genuinely good parents use it. Spanking when calm and not angry, with a bare palm (no object used like a belt etc) and does not leave a mark is not going to hurt a child even in the short term - it's just a shock. Currently over here (the UK) it's only legal to spank with a bare hand and it can't leave a mark, and I think that's sufficient. It is not even close to the Pearls' methods.

[Witsec7]

I myself wouldn't spank but I don't think spanking is harmful enough to be worth outlawing, and so many parents who are genuinely good parents use it. Spanking when calm and not angry, with a bare palm (no object used like a belt etc) and does not leave a mark is not going to hurt a child even in the short term - it's just a shock. Currently over here (the UK) it's only legal to spank with a bare hand and it can't leave a mark, and I think that's sufficient. It is not even close to the Pearls' methods.

Bullshit. It's lazy, it's for parents who want to take the easy way out. There is never any reason to hit a child, that child is small and dependent on you. If you hit an adult it would be a criminal act, if you hit your kid you call it discipline.

I'm not going to argue this you can take the time and read a few of the epic spanking threads rather than rehash them all here.

[Koala]

I myself wouldn't spank but I don't think spanking is harmful enough to be worth outlawing, and so many parents who are genuinely good parents use it. Spanking when calm and not angry, with a bare palm (no object used like a belt etc) and does not leave a mark is not going to hurt a child even in the short term - it's just a shock. Currently over here (the UK) it's only legal to spank with a bare hand and it can't leave a mark, and I think that's sufficient. It is not even close to the Pearls' methods.

Do you have any peer reviewed studies that back up any of the bullshit you are spouting?

I highly question anyone who thinks that an adult hitting a child is not harmful enough to be outlawed.

[Deleted03]

I myself wouldn't spank but I don't think spanking is harmful enough to be worth outlawing, and so many parents who are genuinely good parents use it. Spanking when calm and not angry, with a bare palm (no object used like a belt etc) and does not leave a mark is not going to hurt a child even in the short term - it's just a shock. Currently over here (the UK) it's only legal to spank with a bare hand and it can't leave a mark, and I think that's sufficient. It is not even close to the Pearls' methods.

why do you protect adults who are aware of their actions instead of protecting children who have no choice in the situation?

Spanking is wrong on a philosophical level: you do not own your child, you don't have the right to the body of your child, just like you have no right to anybody's body but your own.

Added to that all the social (level of violence tolerated in society), psychological (kids who think violence is ok, their body foes not belong to them, they are powerless to any adult) and physical (just because someone barely use force, does not mean that the next person has the same understanding, and there is no way to differentiate - some kids might bruise more easily than others and that is NOT a good way to check) risks of spanking and I don't understand why it's still debatable.

There are nuances in the world, parents can be good in one way and not good in another. I am sure a judge would calmly explain why spanking is wrong and order parenting classes to parents, not jail time systematically. But it is fricking time for society to accept that it is wrong to spank, and that spanking becomes the very small minority rather than such a high rate.

[charizbarb]

Do you have any peer reviewed studies that back up any of the bullshit you are spouting?

I highly question anyone who thinks that an adult hitting a child is not harmful enough to be outlawed.

Is the evidence of everyday life not enough? If spanking is so terrible then how come so many adults that are just fine were spanked as kids? How come so many good parents spank? I wouldn't spank myself, but the spankings I got as a kid had no lasting impact on me other than to make me not do that thing again. Definitely not the traumatic events this study is making out. How can swatting a kid's butt with a bare palm be anything other than a swift sharp method of discipline that while not to everyone's taste, is no more harmful than the scratch of the needle when getting vaccinated? It's not hitting, it's not like punching in anger.

[charizbarb]

why do you protect adults who are aware of their actions instead of protecting children who have no choice in the situation?

Spanking is wrong on a philosophical level: you do not own your child, you don't have the right to the body of your child, just like you have no right to anybody's body but your own.

Added to that all the social (level of violence tolerated in society), psychological (kids who think violence is ok, their body foes not belong to them, they are powerless to any adult) and physical (just because someone barely use force, does not mean that the next person has the same understanding, and there is no way to differentiate - some kids might bruise more easily than others and that is NOT a good way to check) risks of spanking and I don't understand why it's still debatable.

There are nuances in the world, parents can be good in one way and not good in another. I am sure a judge would calmly explain why spanking is wrong and order parenting classes to parents, not jail time systematically. But it is fricking time for society to accept that it is wrong to spank, and that spanking becomes the very small minority rather than such a high rate.

A parent has authority over their child. A child does have a choice - it has the choice not to misbehave. If they disobey there are consequences, and for some parents the most effective method of discipline is spanking. I don't see why it's the government's role to tell parents how to discipline their children other than to not seriously injure them etc. Parents know their children the best, they should get to decide. Like I said, I wouldn't spank myself but I respect the right of parents to choose it if it works for them and their children.

[Deleted03]

Is the evidence of everyday life not enough? If spanking is so terrible then how come so many adults that are just fine were spanked as kids? How come so many good parents spank? I wouldn't spank myself, but the spankings I got as a kid had no lasting impact on me other than to make me not do that thing again. Definitely not the traumatic events this study is making out. How can swatting a kid's butt with a bare palm be anything other than a swift sharp method of discipline that while not to everyone's taste, is no more harmful than the scratch of the needle when getting vaccinated? It's not hitting, it's not like punching in anger.

I still remember all the times my mom hit me (I was 6, 8, and 12) I will never forget those, how powerless I felt, how unfair I felt it was in consideration of what i did, how I felt humiliated.

Trauma is not a 100% it never is. But because it can traumatize kids then why take the risk? Plus see above the philosophical incoherence of spanking.

[charizbarb]

Bullshit. It's lazy, it's for parents who want to take the easy way out. There is never any reason to hit a child, that child is small and dependent on you. If you hit an adult it would be a criminal act, if you hit your kid you call it discipline.

I'm not going to argue this you can take the time and read a few of the epic spanking threads rather than rehash them all here.

It's illegal to hit another adult because you do not have authority over their body. But a parent does have some authority over their children's bodies - parents decide to vaccinate, parents decide what medical treatment to go for, parents decide what foods to feed their kids. They don't decide that for other adults. Therefore if spanking as a discipline method works for the parents and the children, then parents should have the right to choose that just like they choose the aforementioned things. Yes, children are dependent on their parents (but not always small - and I do think a minimum age for spanking should be set, from 3 or so or when the child is fully verbal and cognisant of disobedience and discipline) but this includes discipline. Parents have a duty to ensure they discipline their kids properly, and for some this means spanking. And really, sometimes the quick easy method is the best, to make a child put down something dangerous for instance. With situations like that there's no time to reason with the child.

[charizbarb]

I still remember all the times my mom hit me (I was 6, 8, and 12) I will never forget those, how powerless I felt, how unfair I felt it was in consideration of what i did, how I felt humiliated.

Trauma is not a 100% it never is. But because it can traumatize kids then why take the risk? Plus see above the philosophical incoherence of spanking.

I was spanked pretty regularly from 5 to about 12ish? And I really don't remember any of the incidents specifically. They had no impact beyond immediate discipline. I'm sorry your mom spanking you traumatised you like that, but anything can be traumatising. I had a particularly bad incident as a kid with a bodyboard in the sea, but that doesn't mean swimming in the sea or bodyboarding should be banned. Proper guidelines for spanking that ensure parents who take it too far get prosecuted, definitely. But I don't like the government taking over the decisions parents make when they are best made by parents themselves.

[Koala]

I hate it when my posts get eaten. Going to type it out again **sigh**

[smores]

I was spanked pretty regularly from 5 to about 12ish? And I really don't remember any of the incidents specifically. They had no impact beyond immediate discipline. I'm sorry your mom spanking you traumatised you like that, but anything can be traumatising. I had a particularly bad incident as a kid with a bodyboard in the sea, but that doesn't mean swimming in the sea or bodyboarding should be banned. Proper guidelines for spanking that ensure parents who take it too far get prosecuted, definitely. But I don't like the government taking over the decisions parents make when they are best made by parents themselves.

So I grew up in the American South, where the prevalence of spanking is huge. I myself was spanked, and yes, I do remember quite a few incidents even if they weren't reportably bad. They were done completely in anger, I was in fear, and once you set a precedent that you can hit in anger, you run the risk of hitting harder every time. I can't see any benefit to spanking when there are other ways to punish - almost more than I can count - so why do you defend spanking? Why is it all well and good to spank? Because I can name more ways than you why it's not good to spank, I guarantee that.

[Koala]

If spanking is so terrible then how come so many adults that are just fine were spanked as kids? How come so many good parents spank?

My mother was a "good parent". She loved me and I truly believe she did the best she knew how. Unfortunately her "best" included the following:

~I was never in a carseat/seatbelt as a child.

~I was left alone for hours on end from 7 on.

~I was hit with belts, switches, boards, hands, ect. I was slapped in the face and I was pinched.

And yet my mother loved me. She wanted the best for me, but because she was parented the same way she didn't know you could parent any other way. I was severely emotionally traumatized, but to look at me on the outside everyone would say I grew up "just fine". I have a happy family, I've been married almost 12 years, and I would never, ever hit a child.

Had she "just hit me with her hand" or "just allowed other people to hit me with their hands" I believe I would still be emotionally traumatized. It is a real mind fuck to have someone that "loves you" hitting you.

I wouldn't spank myself, but the spankings I got as a kid had no lasting impact on me other than to make me not do that thing again.

This tells me 2 things:

1. If obviously impacted you or you wouldn't be committed to not hitting your own kids.

2. You clearly believe there are more effective ways to discipline. Which makes me wonder why you are advocating so hard for parents to have a right to hit their children.

is no more harmful than the scratch of the needle when getting vaccinated?

How do you know how hard people are hitting their kids or how harmful those kids find it. Peer reviewed studies disagree with your findings which are based on...what was that now? Oh, I remember...nothing.

It's not hitting

Awesome! Then pretending I can't understand what the word "spanking" means, please tell me how to do it without including any of the following in your description:

hitting:

Bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully.

Accidentally strike (part of one's body) against something, often causing injury.

[Koala]

A parent has authority over their child. A child does have a choice - it has the choice not to misbehave. If they disobey there are consequences

Are you aware that men once had the "authority" to hit their wives? But I guess that's okay, because the wives had a "choice". If they didn't "misbehave", they probably didn't get hit.

The "consequences" of a child "disobeying" should never be having an adult hit them.

[jaynie]

I myself wouldn't spank but I don't think spanking is harmful enough to be worth outlawing, and so many parents who are genuinely good parents use it. Spanking when calm and not angry, with a bare palm (no object used like a belt etc) and does not leave a mark is not going to hurt a child even in the short term - it's just a shock. Currently over here (the UK) it's only legal to spank with a bare hand and it can't leave a mark, and I think that's sufficient. It is not even close to the Pearls' methods.

Actually, there is evidence that exactly that kind of spanking DOES harm children later in life. Not all of them, and not always to the same extent, but they are harmed. Many people do not recognize it in themselves or others, but if you do tests you find people who were spanked "when calm and not angry, with a bare palm and without leaving a mark" are more aggressive, less trusting, more prone to lying (and better at it) etc then their well-parented peers. (I'll look for the study I'm thinking of later when I have some time, but it was very recent).

My mum spanked my with a bare hand occasionally, mostly when I was being overly contrary and difficult. As an adult, I would say my two main faults are being overly contrary and difficult -- especially when I can tell I'm getting on my poor mum's (who other than these lapses was a wonderful progressive parent) last nerve. This is predictable -- children who are hit, no matter how much or how little, need to take control of the situation in any way they can. In my case, it was by bringing it on myself, in a sense -- if I was gonna get hit I might as well control when it happens! In other cases it is by lying about wrongdoings to avoid punishment. In still others it is by eventually hitting back. But we don't often see the link clearly spelled out. We know Henry gets in fights all the time and Martha is a habitual liar and Amanda has relationship trouble, but we don't know that all three of them were "kindly" spanked as children -- and they themselves may not have seen the connection.

Further, spanking EVEN IF IT WERE A GOOD TEACHING TOOL could only teach children what not to do in a particular circumstance, and usually a very specific circumstance. It teaches "don't touch that particular ring on that particular stove" rather than "be careful around appliances because you could get hurt". Or for younger kids especially (who do NOT have a choice in their behaviour in the sense that they don't have the intellectual development to understand what they're doing) it teaches "holy shit, mum is hitting me!" instead of "that thing I did five minutes ago that I've forgotten about already is a bad thing to do."

[Boltingmadonna]

Oh jeez--here we go again. Always the same justifications for hitting kids.

charizbarb said:

Spanking when calm and not angry, with a bare palm (no object used like a belt etc) and does not leave a mark is not going to hurt a child even in the short term - it's just a shock

You know, you've just defined "spanking" so carefully that I'm guessing not one spanking in a hundred could actually meet those qualifications. I can't think of a single time when I was tempted to spank that I was NOT angry. I can't think of a single time that my parents hit us that they weren't angry. One of the things that pisses me off about spanking fundies is that they always claim they aren't angry. Oh, no--they're just going to hit little Susie the requisite number of licks out of a sincere concern for her immortal soul. I say BULLSHIT. Of course they are angry. Little Susie has made them feel shame because they aren't perfect parents. She has interfered with their good feelings about themselves. She has frustrated them by having needs that weren't in their MOTH schedule. That's what she's really being punished for. They just suppress it all under the sweet facade and take it out on the kids with a pious justification. It's almost creepier when a parent acts as if they're not even angry. Okay, so you are perfectly calm and in control of yourself--that just means you're hitting with malice aforethought. If you're so calm and in control, then you have plenty of time to choose a different form of discipline.

Also, I call bullshit on the idea that being spanked with a bare hand doesn't hurt. When a grown man hits a five-year-old, you damn betcha it hurts. And of course it leaves a mark. The skin is red and it stings. The mark just goes away before anyone can see it.

[snarkbillie]

I myself wouldn't spank but I don't think spanking is harmful enough to be worth outlawing, and so many parents who are genuinely good parents use it. Spanking when calm and not angry, with a bare palm (no object used like a belt etc) and does not leave a mark is not going to hurt a child even in the short term - it's just a shock. Currently over here (the UK) it's only legal to spank with a bare hand and it can't leave a mark, and I think that's sufficient. It is not even close to the Pearls' methods.

I disagree with everything you've said here.

[browngrl]

I agree that any legal defences for spanking should be removed.

It is an assault plain and simple. It may not be a severe assault. It may not cause lasting damage. It may not be severe enough to merit compensation or punishment. BUT it is an assault.

It is absolutely not enough to justify it by personal experience or "life" experience. Like any other treatment it should be assessed with proper studies as anecdotal evidence is notoriously misleading.

The best evidence (not anecdotal) we have is that is does not work and in some cases it can have significant sequelae. If a parent wants to spank at the very least they should admit to themselves that what they are doing is assaulting their child for no proven benefit other than reducing their own tension/anger.

Maybe we should just change the name form spanking to calling it what it is: assault.

[formergothardite]

Oh! I hope this spanking defender will explain how you can spank without hitting! Please! I'm all ears.

[Alecto]

[Hisey]

Here is a quote from Kelly Crawford's e-book on this subject:

"I am a firm believer that a spanking is the best method of discipline for younger children. There is something miraculous about the “sting†of a switch applied consistently and firmly. And I emphasize a switch. A paddle or wooden spoon or other such instrument can bruise or injure more easily than a thin, flexible switch. I do not recommend “time out†unless a spanking is impossible for some reason. Time-out often provokes anger and does not bring a child to repentance. While it may be useful in some instances (a whining child who is removed from the family until he “gets cheerfulâ€), generally a spanking is much more effective for disobedience.

As children get a little older (it will vary from one child to another), around the age of thirteen or fourteen, other forms of discipline may prove more effective. Removing privileges, charging “feesâ€, extra chores, etc., can all be alternate forms of discipline for older children. It’s helpful to try to “make the punishment fit the crimeâ€.

And here is how she does it:

Once you have clearly explained the offense, and explained that you are spanking him because you want him to learn to obey God, offer a Bible verse related to the offense. If he spoke harshly to his sister, you may use “Pleasant words are a honeycomb; sweet to the soul and health to the bones.†Or, “Be ye kind one to another...†This will reinforce the reason behind the correction. We should always point our children to the concrete reasons of Scripture behind their offenses.

Then, placing the child over your lap if he is young, or over the edge of the bed if he is older, administer a few stinging swats. It is best to spank bare skin or through thin undergarments.

Insist that the child does not kick or scream, or throw himself on the floor. This behavior warrants another spanking until he can control himself enough to receive the discipline. If he cannot regain control, tell him you will leave the room and come back when he has calmed down, and he must receive another spanking for his tantrum. This can take a tremendous amount of self-control on your part, but if you remain calm and consistent, he will soon learn and comply.

Once the spanking is over, pick him up and restore a right relationship. This is very important. If he is angry, he may need to be given a little time. If his anger does not subside, the session is not complete. He must come to the point of brokenness, and desiring forgiveness.

Close in prayer, thanking God for the forgiveness He has given.

When the heart has been nurtured like this, the child will feel a tremendous burden lifted and you will both resume harmony. This may sound too time-consuming, but if done consistently, these sessions will soon become very rare. It is so worth the time!

[singsingsing]

I was spanked by my father when I was a child. It was done out of anger. He would get angry with me for something I was doing, and come to spank me. I would run terrified, and he would chase me through the house. It was the worst feeling of fear, because I knew there was nowhere I could hide. I remember screaming and sobbing out of fear. It wasn't just the pain of the spanking, it was the fear, and the humiliation of the act. I had to watch this happen to my sister as well. This was not discipline, it was an adult man taking out his anger on a small child because he was not mature enough to actually parent us. I learned nothing from these incidents other than to fear my father and to hide from his anger.

My mother did not spank us. She used much more effective forms of discipline. We learned to trust and respect our mother, and to fear and avoid our father. I know that not every parent who spanks does it like my father did, but I still think it's at best totally unnecessary, and at worst extremely damaging.

[jjmennonite]

We were spanked - it is the Mennonite way - or our sect, at least. My father slapped my daughter's hand when they were looking after her - her first hit, by an adult. They listened when I asked them not to do that any more - learned new methods in their 70s.

My father is 92, unable to walk after a stroke, fairly senile. I was at his care conference, at the nursing home, and they said 'he sometimes gets agitated but then we redirect him.' I said 'just like parenting a toddler'.

Imagine if they said 'He sometimes gets agitated, but we just smack his hand', or 'He sometimes gets agitated but then we just hit him with a plumbing line'.

It maked me shudder. So why would it be OK for children? They do have 'authority over his body' - they decide when he will eat, go to bed, pee, take his meds, all that.