Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of corporal punishment on children
The case against corporal punishment
LONG TERM effects of corporal punishment on children
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of corporal punishment on children
When a man is unpleased with something his spouse says or does and he hits her, our society labels it as abuse. If a mother hits her child our society labels it as spanking. Whichever terminology is used to help define corporal punishment, it all means the same. The very idea of physical discipline is based on an adult using his or her larger physique and power to intimidate and force someone much smaller and weaker into a state of compliance (Rathis, 2007). In the western culture, they publically frown at people who use their physical power to dominate someone smaller, yet when it comes to their children they take a pass, turn their heads, and call it spanking (Ray, 2008). It is hard to understand why society continues to argue the approval of spanking children. Many people acknowledge that children and adults should not use physical force against each other; however, people firmly oppose if it’s acceptable if adults should spank children. When will our society get to a position where everyone agrees that a child’s body belong to themself, and exploiting their bodies, despite how others define abuse? Spankings lead to many issues such as, lower IQ scores, mental/emotional problems, physical abuse, and damaged parent-child bonds resulting from an ineffective punishment.
There is only a small but very interesting amount history dealing with the negative impact of spankings. Negative impact of spanking a child came under discussion in the late 1900s when the United Nations embraced the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which informs that a child has the freedom to be excluded from sexual and economic exploitation. (News Dash,2010). One hundred and ninety three nations have signed to enforce the treaty because they feel that...
... middle of paper ...
...drawing attention. Timeouts work because it gives the parents time to regain composure and it is a neutral place for the child (Spencer 2001).
Parents should think twice when it comes to disciplining their children because spankings aren’t always the way to go. Spankings may injure children causing them to become aggressive, have lower IQ scores than children who are not spanked and develop mental and emotional problems. Spankings may also damage the bond between a parent and a child and may lead to physical abuse and violence. Overall spankings are ineffective because they only stop a behavior momentarily. With that being said parents should find other ways to punish their children because spankings come with so many issues and harm. Knowing all the effects a spanking can have on a child many people may turn to other disciplining techniques as listed above.
Swat! The entire store tries not to stare at the overwhelmed mother spanking her three-year-old whaling son. As if the screaming tantrum wasn't enough of a side show at the supermarket. This method, or technique perhaps, has been around for decades, even centuries. Generations have sat on grandpa’s lap and listened to the stories of picking their own switch or getting the belt after pulling off a devilish trick. So why then has it become a major controversy in the past few decades? The newest claim is that spanking and other forms of physical punishment can lead to increased aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury and mental health problems for children. Brendan L. Smith uses many case studies and psychologists findings in his article “The Case Against Spanking” to suggest that parents refrain from physically punishing their children due to lasting harmful effects.
The authors make the claim that a single-payer system would: be more universal and comprehensive than the ACA; save costs by consolidating bureaucracy created under the ACA, provide flexible payment opportunities that are not present under the ACA, and allow a more stable relationship between doctors and patients that is unavailable under the ACA. To support these claims the authors’ cite data that conveys: employers who are looking to save on health benefits raise deductibles for their employees, many elderly citizens have avoided care due to high prices, and the US could save up to 500 billion dollars in administrative costs by cutting bureaucracy. The payment of the single-payer system is supported by the authors’ analogy to “lump-sum” budgets like a neighborhood fire station. Furthermore, the authors’ postulate that the stability of the patient-doctor relationship would be strengthened by the creation of a nationwide network of healthcare rather than the narrow networks patients must shift to with each enrollment cycle. Not only is the evidence relevant to each respective claim, but all evidence utilized by the author’s was found in 2015, making the evidence current. The credibility of the evidence used by the authors’ is rooted in their use of scholarly research and extended by their citations in the “references”
People say spanking can be harmful to a child’s health. They have placed laws in Washington State in regards to spanking and other corporal punishments. But why, why all the fuss, spanking couldn’t be that bad could it? There must be studies to prove that spanking can cause bad child behavior otherwise why would there be laws on this madder? What are the opinions of the experts, and their methods of disciplining children?
The article discusses heavily the study "Single -Payer/Medicare for all: An Economic Stimulus Plan for the Nation" by Don DeMoro. According to DeMoro’s study, a single payer system is affordable and costs less than bailing out the banking industry. And the effects of the healthcare system would include the creation of jobs, increased business and tax revenues, and improved healthcare in general.
When describing a physical altercation between two adults, the term is assault and battery. Assault on an individual has more than immediate effects; the effects can last a lifetime in severe cases. In all fifty states, it is a crime to hit, strike or use corporal punishment in any deliberate manner towards any person over the age of eighteen. However, this law does not apply to physical force being used on minors. Spanking, whipping, and paddling are among a few common references to this form of punishment. Physically disciplining children has had many names over the years. No matter which term is used, corporal punishment has a negative impact on every party involved. It is a widely used, socially accepted method of discipline. “Approximately 94% of three and four-year old children have been spanked in the past year (Slade & Winssow 1321). Although spanking is a widespread practice, it is becoming more controversial. The negative effects of spanking greatly outweigh the benefits. Spanking is a socially tolerated view promoting abusive patterns, and has a negative psychological impact in teaching children that pain, fear, and confusion promote conformability.
Unlike the United States, nearly every other industrialized country in the world utilizes a non profit socialized health care system provided by their national government to provide healthcare to all of its citizens.This system, known as a single payer system, is able to set definitive prices on medical procedures while eliminating the need for negotiating and extra administrative task.Through socialized health care, countries such as Canada and the UK have been able to hold down cost benefitting the people in their respective countries (Goldman, Phyllis
Public voice will be heard. In the single-payer system for the all country they follow, congress has explicit provisions for public accountability and transparency. Public are subject to accountability and demand for the transparency. If Public does not follow or violate the rules they we be held to the account. Single-payer system will ensure that everyone has access to a single tier of high-quality care, based on medical need, not ability to pay. It will be first come first serve. There will be long wait times for non-urgent procedures, e.g. hip replacements in Canada, are often cited by opponents of single-payer reform as an inevitable consequence of universal, publicly financed health systems. They are not. Wait times are a function of a health system’s capacity and its ability to monitor and manage patient flow. In recent years Canada has shortened, wait times for non-urgent procedures by using better queuing techniques. In the case of urgent care, wait times have never been an issue. Moreover, we spend twice as much per person as Canada does; enough to assure that we would not have waits in our single payer system. On the other side, In America patients are not used to of waiting they demand service to be provided as soon as they enter facility.
In the article titled, "Health: Medicare and the Economy," by: Dean Foust, found in Business Week and published in 2004, it is stated that, cuts in Medicare would be bad for hospitals and other managed-care providers. Although the United States is considered the strongest country in the world, there are numerous political, social, and economic issues that require reform to improve our way of life. Reform is needed for the health care system in order for Americans to live a life that is both safe and prosperous. Health care and prescription drug costs, whose escalating prices have caused many Americans to go without adequate medical care. Health care is one of the most controversial issues in the news right now. The co...
The first side to the health care system is the Single Payer system. Many European countries, and our neighboring country Canada, have this type of system. This system has every citizen put his or her money into a fund that would be controlled by a federal agency. That agency would then pay for the treatment. Private insurance companies would basically be die off. The difference from this and our current health care system...
Health care in our nation should be provided directly by the federal government under what is known as a “single-payer” health care system. It is a program that would cover Americans from “the cradle to the grave”. In our current system, hundreds of billions of dollars go to insurance company overheads, unnecessary administrati...
One of the most important, however, is America’s health care. America has a terrible health care system, especially when compared to other first world countries. This private system America uses to treat the sick is ludicrous. This system hurts many Americans and is ridiculous. In the interest of freedom and equality, the state of Iowa needs to be the first to enact a single-payer system in the United States.
Like many college students I have to pinch pennies to make it through school. Every last penny counts when budgeting my monetary supply. As a result of this I have found that I do not have enough to spare to pay for health insurance. Unlike most college students I am over the age of 23 and thus not covered by my parents insurance. Since I am only employed part time I am also not able to obtain it from work. This puts me in the company of the more than 42 million Americans who do not have health insurance. It is past time that the United States join the rest of the industrialized countries that have already decided to provide their citizens with health care. I believe a single payer health care system is necessary. A national health care system would provide a number of benefits. To begin with, it would cut the overall costs of health care. Secondly it would actually decrease bureaucracy by removing the many layers of insurance paper work patients and physicians are forced to go through in our current system. Finally it would increase life expectancy by allowing more money conscious Americans to receive adequate prevention instead of waiting until an illness becomes worse. All of these reasons point towards a national health care program as being the solution we need. Some opponents of single payer sytems, mostly financed by insurance companies that stand to lose billions from such a plan, point to some of the other countries that have enacted such plans as an advisory against our following suit. However they fail to take into account some of the methods unique to those countries and overstate some of the problems while ignoring our own.
Throughout the years, universal health care has certainly been a debatable topic among Americans, the debate being whether we should stay true to the current system of private health insurance companies, covering only those wealthy enough to afford it, or if we should have a government-run system that covers all Americans. Currently, there are two programs to help support those without health insurance: Medicare and Medicaid. They are both government-sponsored programs designed to help cover healthcare costs. The first, Medicare, is a federal program that is attached to Social Security and is made readily available to all U.S. citizens of or above the age 65 and also the disabled. The other, Medicaid, is a joint federal and state program that helps low-income individuals and families pay for the medical costs and long-term care. It requires more nitty-gritty details than only being of a certain age; these details are determined by each individual state. Both programs work together to help provide coverage for the elderly and the poor. Unfortunately the rest of the population, over 45 million Americans, are left uninsured. Without changes in our policy, there will be a growing number of people, mainly under the age of 65, which will lack health insurance. The United States government should provide universal health care to its people, as proven by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency that provides valid economic data, who estimate that the average number of nonelderly people alone that are uninsured will rise from about 45 million in 2009 to about 54 million in 2019. This is not anything new; again, health care has been a problem for years, beginning in the 1930s during the great...
The use of spanking is one of the most controversial parenting practices and also one of the oldest, spanning throughout many generations. Spanking is a discipline method in which a supervising adult deliberately inflicts pain upon a child in response to a child’s unacceptable behaviour. Although spanking exists in nearly every country and family, its expression is heterogeneous. First of all the act of administering a spanking varies between families and cultures. As Gershoff (2002) pointed out, some parents plan when a spanking would be the most effective discipline whereas some parents spank impulsively (Holden, 2002). Parents also differ in their moods when delivering this controversial punishment, some parents are livid and others try and be loving and reason with the child. Another source of variation is the fact that spanking is often paired with other parenting behaviours such as, scolding, yelling, or perhaps raging and subsequently reasoning. A third source of variation concerns parental characteristics. Darling and Steinberg (1993) distinguished between the content of parental acts and the style in which it was administered (Holden, 2002). With all this variation researchers cannot definitively isolate the singular effects of spanking.
Many authorities and psychologists believe that spanking breaks a child's spirit and only leads to violence. They think that it causes the child to become depressed, angry or hostile and they have conducted many studies to prove these things. This type of harsh punishment occurs often, but it is called child abuse. There is a great difference between abusing a child and properly disciplining a child. "One is an act of love; the other is an act of hostility, and they are as different as night and day" (Dobson 35).