Canadian Med Assoc Journal calls for spanking to be illegal

[fundifugee]

The article summarizes research to date, and states that there should be an end to any legal justification for physical punishment of children in the criminal code.

http://www.cmaj.ca/

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/02/06/cmaj.101314

article in the lay press about the publication:

'Right to spank' law called public health threat

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[flojo]

It's illegal in New Zealand. Caused quite the controversey at the time...

[Clementine]

I like Canada more and more! :)

[AnnieC 305]

:flags-canada:

[tankgirl]

Does this mean books like The Pearls, that advocate spanking children with objects and under 2 would be illegal in Canada? Go Canada!

[Maude]

I don't think the books themselves would be illegal, but putting them into practice would be. In any case, I hope this happens.

[debrand]

It won't happen in America, at least for another generation. Spanking is too ingrained in the culture.

I live in a conservative area. So many people spank that it isn't even questioned. The general attitude is that if you are a good parent, you must spank your kids. I don't know how you fight against that perception.

[eohiken]

Hm, that would be interesting. I vividly remember the last time they tried to do that. Husband's SIL spanked her kids A LOT, and we were hoping she would stop because of the legislation. They ended up just clarifying what exactly constituted allowable corporal punishment; 2 to 12, backside - waist to knee, no objects, no marks.

Recently, there have been a couple of high profile spanking cases in the courts of my province. Witnesses calling cops because of the screaming kids, many MANY hits. I'm pretty sure both were acquitted on the fact that they didn't leave marks. Apparently, you can wale on a kid for quite some time without raising marks.

[Eoywin]

I've spanked my daughter a few times - but never hard enough to make any difference. Taking away her stuffed animals or putting her in time out are usually more effective.

There is a fine line to walk between a pat on the butt to get a kid's attention to actual assault. I don't think I could ever spank my daughter hard enough that it would actually hurt / leave a mark / etc.

[tankgirl]

Hm, that would be interesting. I vividly remember the last time they tried to do that. Husband's SIL spanked her kids A LOT, and we were hoping she would stop because of the legislation. They ended up just clarifying what exactly constituted allowable corporal punishment; 2 to 12, backside - waist to knee, no objects, no marks.

Recently, there have been a couple of high profile spanking cases in the courts of my province. Witnesses calling cops because of the screaming kids, many MANY hits. I'm pretty sure both were acquitted on the fact that they didn't leave marks. Apparently, you can wale on a kid for quite some time without raising marks.

This is why it would be good to see it completely illegal, teaching people to hide the spanking and how not to cause visible marks, is the same thing that people like The Pearls teach. I also like that they already are trying to have Doctors teach better parenting techniques.

[debrand]

Is Canada doing anything to teach people how to parent without spanking? Following tradition is easy for many people. It can be difficult to learn a new way of doing something.

[eohiken]

Yes and no. Yes, if you consider pamphletes, websites and 1-800 numbers helpful. I think doctors also ask about discipline techniques in the home. What this manages to accomplish, I'm not so sure about.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'm going to be the voice of dissent here - even though I'm against spanking.

Since the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada case, spanking has only been legal in very restricted circumstances: no objects, no using on children under 2 or over 12, not done in anger, not leaving marks, not anywhere on the head or face, open hand only, and only done by a parent. The Pearls suggestions and Mississippi-style school paddlings would be considered assault with a weapon here.

What's left is relatively minor spanking, which isn't great parenting IMHO, but also is relatively common and relatively unlikely to cause major harm.

If organizations want to encourage parents to use alternatives to physical punishment, great!

Actually banning all spanking, though, causes all sorts of issues. Part of my job is doing child protection work. If you have a complete ban on spanking, that means that ANY spanking at all - even a one-time slap on the wrist of a toddler reaching for the stove - must be reported to police and child protective services, and that courts will be required to make order finding that the children are in need of protection and granting the child protection agencies authority to intervene. I am already seeing instances like this, but at least now we have some legal protection when the cases go to court.

I'm completely supportive of child protection officials doing their jobs when it is genuinely necessary to protect children. Having worked on both sides, though, I can tell you that they don't just wave a magic wand and make families perfect. Intervention is intrusive. It means social workers interviewing children at school or coming to your home, it can mean that your child is taken away to the police station or hospital, it can mean that a social worker can get police assistance to enter your home and take your children kicking and screaming. It's traumatic, and foster care placements are far from ideal. If you have a drug-addicted parent neglecting children, or an angry abusive parent, there isn't any choice. If you have a loving, supportive family that may be dealing with a child that has the odd high-maintenance moment, it's total overkill.

[Cran]

It's been illegal in Germany for quite some years. The children are just the same brats as before ;)

Parents have no right to do things to their children that have been proven to be harmful. They aren't allowed to amputate body parts at will, either!

[fundifugee]

I'm going to be the voice of dissent here - even though I'm against spanking.

Since the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada case, spanking has only been legal in very restricted circumstances: no objects, no using on children under 2 or over 12, not done in anger, not leaving marks, not anywhere on the head or face, open hand only, and only done by a parent. The Pearls suggestions and Mississippi-style school paddlings would be considered assault with a weapon here.

What's left is relatively minor spanking, which isn't great parenting IMHO, but also is relatively common and relatively unlikely to cause major harm.

If organizations want to encourage parents to use alternatives to physical punishment, great!

Actually banning all spanking, though, causes all sorts of issues. Part of my job is doing child protection work. If you have a complete ban on spanking, that means that ANY spanking at all - even a one-time slap on the wrist of a toddler reaching for the stove - must be reported to police and child protective services, and that courts will be required to make order finding that the children are in need of protection and granting the child protection agencies authority to intervene. I am already seeing instances like this, but at least now we have some legal protection when the cases go to court.

I'm completely supportive of child protection officials doing their jobs when it is genuinely necessary to protect children. Having worked on both sides, though, I can tell you that they don't just wave a magic wand and make families perfect. Intervention is intrusive. It means social workers interviewing children at school or coming to your home, it can mean that your child is taken away to the police station or hospital, it can mean that a social worker can get police assistance to enter your home and take your children kicking and screaming. It's traumatic, and foster care placements are far from ideal. If you have a drug-addicted parent neglecting children, or an angry abusive parent, there isn't any choice. If you have a loving, supportive family that may be dealing with a child that has the odd high-maintenance moment, it's total overkill.

Interesting points, and clearly the child protection infrastructure is already stretched beyond its limit where I live.

What I like about this story so far is the media outlets have mainly focused on the more interesting article points about how spanking causes aggression, lower intelligence, increases chances of being in an abusive relationship in adulthood, etc. Of course you get the usual bozos calling/writing to the news agencies quoting Proverbs and saying things like "i spanked my kids and my son has a Ph.D. now!" to prove all established research wrong. But they also seem to have organized a good line-up of folks to talk about the study who actually recommend parenting resources and discuss alternate strategies.

[Clementine]

It's been illegal in Germany for quite some years. The children are just the same brats as before ;)

Parents have no right to do things to their children that have been proven to be harmful. They aren't allowed to amputate body parts at will, either!

They are here. Circumcisions for "cultural" or "religious" reasons are legal. It's insane. The people who questions it are called "racists".

[Esther]

Yeah, it's been illegal in a number of European countries for a while. I never knew people actually still did that as a systematic punishment for misbehavior until I came to the US. Growing up, I got the occasional smack from my mother when I was rude, but it wasn't a 'I'm gonna spank your bottom now because you did X or Y' kind of thing. I think that just teaches anyone past the age of two that the only reason they shouldn't do this is because otherwise they'll be in pain. I find it very 19th century.

[Esther]

However, I really don't think circumcision should be illegal at all. You're removing a tiny unnecessary bit of a skin from your baby - which they will never remember at all and which may come to bother them later on for hygienic reasons anyway. If you feel traumatized because of that at a later age, I think your issues are bigger than just that circumcision. It's absolutely not in any way like amputating a limb.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Interesting points, and clearly the child protection infrastructure is already stretched beyond its limit where I live.

What I like about this story so far is the media outlets have mainly focused on the more interesting article points about how spanking causes aggression, lower intelligence, increases chances of being in an abusive relationship in adulthood, etc. Of course you get the usual bozos calling/writing to the news agencies quoting Proverbs and saying things like "i spanked my kids and my son has a Ph.D. now!" to prove all established research wrong. But they also seem to have organized a good line-up of folks to talk about the study who actually recommend parenting resources and discuss alternate strategies.

I didn't get access to the full original article. What was the exact methodology? How did they prove causation, and not just association? In other words - is it spanking that CAUSES poor results, or is it that parents who spank are likely to be poorer and less educated, or that children who are spanked are likely to be more challenging, etc. Also, was the study looking at all forms of physical discipline, or specifically looking at the effects of occasional legal physical discipline?

[Clementine]

However, I really don't think circumcision should be illegal at all. You're removing a tiny unnecessary bit of a skin from your baby - which they will never remember at all and which may come to bother them later on for hygienic reasons anyway. If you feel traumatized because of that at a later age, I think your issues are bigger than just that circumcision. It's absolutely not in any way like amputating a limb.

I think that most uncircumcised men would disagree with you that the foreskin is "unnecessary". So are earlobes too btw, but we don't cut them off babies either.

It's a surgical procedure that is irrevocable and entirely possible to do when the boy is old enough to make his own decision about the it.

[valsa]

which may come to bother them later on for hygienic reasons anyway

This is largely a myth and I wish people would stop perpetrating it.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think that most uncircumcised men would disagree with you that the foreskin is "unnecessary". So are earlobes too btw, but we don't cut them off babies either.

It's a surgical procedure that is irrevocable and entirely possible to do when the boy is old enough to make his own decision about the it.

Babies get pierced ears.

In any case, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that the risks and benefits of circumcision are evenly weighed, so I don't accept the premise that it is "harmful". Since government intervention is inherently intrusive and potentially harmful, I believe that it should be reserved for those situations in which it is truly necessary.

[Clementine]

Babies get pierced ears.

In any case, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that the risks and benefits of circumcision are evenly weighed, so I don't accept the premise that it is "harmful". Since government intervention is inherently intrusive and potentially harmful, I believe that it should be reserved for those situations in which it is truly necessary.

I am surprised that it is legal in Sweden where we have very strong laws who protect children's rights. Spanking has been illegal since 1978, but it is still legal to cut off a part of your son's penis... is just beyond me. And I do not wish for my tax money to pay for it - it's done for free at hospitals.

There is a debate going on about it, but since something like 99% of those who do it are immigrants, they use the racist card to shut up the people and doctors who are critical of the practice.

[Spider Burps]

Babies get pierced ears.

In any case, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that the risks and benefits of circumcision are evenly weighed, so I don't accept the premise that it is "harmful". Since government intervention is inherently intrusive and potentially harmful, I believe that it should be reserved for those situations in which it is truly necessary.

Yeah, because babies totally choose to get their ears pierced. They say "Mommy, please pierce my ears. I'm worried that people won't know that I'm a girl!" Piercing your baby's ears is for YOU, not for the baby. :roll:

[valsa]

In any case, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that the risks and benefits of circumcision are evenly weighed, so I don't accept the premise that it is "harmful".

Not true.

What they state is-

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

They are not evenly weighed.