Spanking children, a parent's right ?

shorty why exactly do you think those things are illegal?
historically they wernt
the romans had APSOLUTE authority over there wives and children so why does the goverment enforce laws relating to domestic violence, rape and child abuse and neglect.

because it causes HARM. i have already shown again and again evidence of the harm this sort of physical assult causes and what have i got back

so as long as there is no ovious physical evidence its ok to causes as much psychological harm as you like. its ok to beat them through a phone book? use water torure i surpose as long as you dont leave a mark and they go to uni?

firstly there is no such thing as parental rights, only responcablilities
secondly its dam arrogent to think that science cant pass judgement on something which causes harm if you dont do it yourself.

this is a SCIENCE website and you have been given science. you lost the debate simply because you have been either unable or unwilling to provide ANY suporting evidence when confrunted with overwhelimng evidence that your wrong

i herd of some parents a while ago who said they could live on light alone. they didnt feed there children because light alone was enough to sustaine them. do you think that because i havent tried living on light alone if i had found this family i shouldnt report them?

lastly to MAD, i find your dimissal of scientific evidence highly disterbing when taking into account your proffession. shorty might not be a scientist but YOU are ment to be by definition. i think you need to spend some time back at uni renuing your credentials because if this is how you act in your job someone should report you to the medical board before you kill someone

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Madanthonywayne has a commendable point: the anti-spanking tirades within this thread have been projected from none other than Asguard, lepustimidus, and (Q), who haven't a single child between the three of them. On the other hand, we find two well-experienced, pro-spanking parents in shorty_37 and madanthonywayne who have direct exposure to this discussion, and undergo the process of parenting every second of their lives. It seems the members who have no children really have no merit whatsoever in a discussion like this, and they certainly have no business dictating to successful parents what they should change about their methods.

How about the three of you have kids, and then disharmonize with the views of other parents on the subject of spanking? Maybe when your kid brushes aside your verbal warnings and pathetic "time-out" punishments without so much as a whimper, you'll reconsider your views on spanking and parenting in general. I think lepustimidus and (Q) are doing their best to stick to the topic at hand, whereas Asguard is making a blithering fool out of himself. Look, retard: spanking a child who misbehaves and refuses to concede to his or her parents' demands after being subjected to several unsuccessful endeavours at non-spanking methods is not equatable to rape and/or female genital mutilation. The fact that you can even begin to make such a comparison shows your awful pervertedness and stupidity.


Kadark

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

why dont you go find a gay BF before ranting about the imorality of homosexuality?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

anger and frustration are not excuses under law for any criminal behavor, as that seems to be your ONLY argument i suggest you go back to the stone age where you belong.

the rest of us rely on science for our public policy and our laws, as i have already shown the science shows the harm caused by smacking children and to be honest i dont really feel like doing so again.

after 23 pages you would thing ONE of you could proved ONE piece of SCIENCE (rather than a bad piece of legislation and a religious artical which the author is so proud of they dont even bother showing there name or there sources)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I already told Asguard to get off the crack. I don't know if I should laugh at his ridiculous comparisons or feel sorry for him that he really thinks they are similar comparisons.

 

shorty, orleander, mad and kadark i would like to remind you of the section your currently posting in.

this is human SCIENCE, not religion.

there for im proposing this thread be moved to bad science, the cesspool, free thoughts or out right closed seeing as those oposite seem incapable of debating in a scientific manner

 

You are way out of line here. Way out of line. Because I don't agree with you on the issue of spanking and I don't bow before some study by Murray Straus you question my credentials as a doctor? WTF? The issue of spanking is, in fact controversial even among "social scientists".

Interesting. It says the subject of whether or not to spank is controvercial even among professionals! And that studies on the subject often reach opposite conclusions!

The social sciences are very soft sciences. How in the hell do you think they measure the use of corporal punishment among their "subjects"? Surveys, I'll bet. How accurate are those surveys? Studies have shown eye witnesses to crimes to be as unrealiable as hell, and yet you want to base child rearing techniques on data based upon someone's recollection of events that occured when they were 2 years old? Really?
]
And how did they measure who coerced someone into sex or raped them? Another survey?Give me a break.

Between the existence of confounding variables and the lack of any real hard data, how the hell are we supposed to base our lives on this study or others like it?

The very idea is absurd.

 

THANK YOU, finally after 23 pages some evidence

oh and BTW that comment wasnt related to the smacking but rather your comment that you ignore scientific evidence everyday in your job. im sorry if that offends you but i belive in EVIDENCE BASED MED, not in doctors opinions.

unfortunatly i have to leave now, i will get back to responding to that latter

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Holy crap did you interpret that incorrectly. I didn't mean that I ignore scientific evidence, but that I think for myself. I form an opinion based upon experience and evidence seen among my patients and then I test it.

When I simplified the medication schedule for elderly patients (for instance), do you not think I then had them return to determine the outcome of the trial? Of course! I usually did a "reverse monocular", which is where you change the medication on just one eye and see what the effect is (thereby using the other eye as a control). The same thing goes for not patching. I know how long it takes to heal with a patch. I then treated some patients without patching and found the time to be the same or better with improved comfort.

My point was simply that I do not just accept the word from on high and keep doing things the same way I was taught because "that's the way we've always done it". If it doesn't make sense to me, I try something different. That's how progress is made.

 

Kadark:

You're forgetting Orleander and Bells. Orleander is staunchly against spanking, and Bells seems to regret having ever done so. Superstring also gave us that enlightening anecdote of a mum who disciplines her kids via deprivation, not spankings. And although Tiassa hasn't chipped in on this thread, from what he's said in the past he doesn't even raise his voice (let alone hit) his daughter! And yes, I'm actually genuinely complimenting Tiassa for once, go figure.

So please don't misrepresent the issue as 'parent = pro-spanking', 'not parent = anti-spanking', because that's not the case.

I could argue that I have to deal with children every time I have a discussion on sciforums.

asguard:

Why are you having a go at Orleander, you bumbling moron? She agrees with you in regards to this issue!

 

Mad do you ask tell the pts your going against the regular treatment when you do it?

or are you like that black guy in house thinking doctors are god and pts know nothing.

i dont mean this as an insult I am actually interested because i actually had a doctor like that who didnt seem to think i or my partner would actually know anything. the idiot didnt even twig that i knew what i was talking about after i gave him my partners BP for the last week. i was right and he was dead wrong (basically because i had a longer time to asses PB when she was actually having the papultations and he refused to lission to me that i knew what i was talking about)

then i had another doctor almost kill me because inspite of the evidence of his own eyes that i was having an alergic reaction to the B12 shots and my assestion that i know i dont react to needles like that (especially as i had had 4 other shots that same week with no reaction) he felt i should keep going with them. i spoke to another doctor at the clinic who told me if i had taken another B12 shot its quite possable i would have had a heart atack, idiot.

im sorry if i tared you with my own prejuduces but i dispise hollier than now doctors who think they are better than there pts

 

This doesn't seem like such a bad idea. You know the statement that a parent is responsible for all the things their child becomes can be linked to religion also? That doesn't make it irrational.

You're very right, foster homes aren't fun at all. Though I may need something better than anecdotal evidence to make that statement

I don't think it's an extraordinary claim that you can hit a child witout abusing them. Also, I can understand why anecdotal evidence doesn't work most of the time, isn't any study you could post based on anecdote? Ultimately, aren't the people doing the studying essentially studying different subjects of anecdote? Anyway:
http://faculty.biola.edu/paulp/sweden.html
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horn072998.html

 

Mad i could only get the abstract of that artical, if you have access to the full thing could you post the results, methodology and conclusions so i can access it

 

As silly as an argument that is, Kadark completely forgot about the parents who don't spank their kids because they know it causes more problems than it solves, hence they follow the guidelines from the many parenting websites already linked.

In the same vein, has Kadark raised kids? Can he put his money where his mouth is?

 

You're flatly ignoring the evidence presented to you and you have yet to provide any yourself.

And yes, you are accepting what you were taught, that spanking is an acceptable form of punishment, because "that's the way we've always done it".

Quite the contradictions in your post.

 

I find that people overly abused/ spanked/ disciplined as a child are quiet, subservient individuals.

 

I don'tknow how it works in Australia, but in the US, once a drug is approved for anything doctors can use it however they want. In my experience, very few drugs are used solely or even mainly for the use they were approved for.

Now, when I'm altering a patient's medication regimen (remember, an elderly patient who I doubt is compliant with the complicated regimen he's currently on) I tell him, "We're going to try simplyfying your medication schedule. Instead taking Pilocarpine 4 times per day, Timoptic twice a day, and Alphagan three times a day; take everything twice a day with about 10 minutes between drops. Then we'll see you back in a month and see how your pressure is running." I found, in pretty much every case that the intraocular pressure control was the same or better with the simplified regimen. Why? Increased compliance.

Of course, nowadays we're even better off since prostaglandin analogs such as Xalatan came on the market. That drug is used only once per day (as are the others in that family of drugs) and is extremely effective. I was often able to replace 2 or 3 drugs with just that one drug.

Also, we've learned that Beta blockers usually only need to be used once a day. So most glaucoma patients can be controlled with one or two drops per day! A huge improvement.

But as far as telling the patient that we're not following FDA guidelines, no, that's rarely mentioned. Not that it's a secret or we're trying to hide anything. It's just that, as I said, most drugs are not prescribed according to FDA guidelines. So discussing that everytime a medication is prescribed would be a bit cumbersome.

As an example, every time a new ocular antibiotic comes out, it gets an approval for conjunctivitis. Why? Because that's a relatively easy and quick approval to get. But what do us doctors do with the new antibiotic drop? Very often it's used for corneal ulcers. The treatment is "off label", but it does meet the standard of care as that's what all doctors do. Now, we're not doing this without any scientific studies being done, they're just not submitting them to the FDA.

Hell, even pred forte, which is the standard drop used for ocular inflamation, was never approved for use in post operative patients! Yet almost all post operative patients use it! The only drug approved for post operative ocular inflamation is Voltaren (I think). But it's way too weak to use by itself in most cases.

Anyway, "off label" usage of drugs is so common that it doesn't warrant comment. Not only that, but using the drug actually approved by the FDA for (say) a corneal ulcer would put a doctor at risk of a lawsuit because the drug that carried that approval is an old drug and is not the current "standard of care".

Why should we use Ciloxan, a second generation fluoroquinolone, which carries the FDA approval for microbial keratitis; when we can use Vigamox (a fourth generation fluoroquinolone) which is proven the have a wider spectrum of activity and better penetration?

 

I was once on Lexapro for my insomnia, and it was never approved for anything but depression. Case in point.

~String

 

We were all children, so we have a perspective on it.

 

I've known, and know currently, several who quite the opposite of "subservient". The pattern is noticeable enough that I sometimes wonder whether the famous hypersensitivity of "conservative" Americans to any hint of condescension or one-upmanship, their reflexive interpretation of all criticism, disagreement, even courtesy or accomplishment, as a threatening attempt at establishing social superiority, does not arise in part from their experiences of being hit as children.

No one not closely involved should attempt to "dictate" parenting to any actual parent - whether they have kids of their own or not.

But outsiders have a place in the discussion, because they can observe without having to defend whatever decisions they have made.

Maybe dogs would be less loaded. I don't have one. I did have one as a child. There are people who hit their dogs to train them, and people who don't. Most people in the US hit and yell at their dogs to, say, housebreak them - not "abusively", in their eyes, just a swat on the nose with a rolled up newspaper, something like that.

My claim is that it's better to train your dog without hitting it.

And I observe that it can be done. Has been done. Is routine, among certain dog owners. A minority, to be sure.

I also observe that the very worst behaved dogs I meet are hit more, not less, than average. And the very best behaved dogs have been hit seldom or never.

Now what is my response to those who say "most people's dogs need more discipline, not less" ? I agree. Or "what are we supposed to do, let the dog shit all over the house ? " why no, you should do something. If you have to hit the dog to housebreak it, then that is better than not housebreaking it. I am not condemning any dog owner for getting the job of training done by the methods they know and the skills they possess. Trained dogs are far superior companions and neighbors than untrained ones, and I praise and honor with gratitude those who train their dogs.

But I know, for a fact, that there are thousands of dogs of all breeds and temperaments, all over the US, that have been housebroken and otherwise well trained without being hit. And I don't think claiming that is a better situation is all that bizarre. There isn't any particular virtue in the act of hitting a dog, in itself, surely ?