While Harriet MacMillan and colleagues1 performed a methodologically rigorous study and the association between childhood corporal punishment and increased lifetime prevalence of psychiatric problems appears solid, there are some unresolved issues that should be noted.
First, MacMillan and colleagues examined only the psychiatric outcomes of children who reported having been slapped or spanked "often" and "sometimes." Editorialist Murray Straus went on to cite this study as testament to the "potential benefits of not spanking, including decreased lifetime risk of mental health problems."2 However, we should consider the flip side of the coin. Proponents of the judicious use of childhood spanking, especially popular in Asian countries, often claim that spanking and slapping are useful adjuncts of the discipline process. They often argue that children grow up to become more "successful" than had they not been subjected to such strict disciplinary measures.
Second, the "extension of full human rights" to children and teens mentioned by Straus is a masked expression for liberalism and the positive rights movement gone wild in the United States. I suspect that this extreme liberalism comes at a price: nowhere else in the world do we witness the frequency and severity of teen violence seen in the United States.
Nor am I advocating the communitarian approach, or "Asian values," espoused in Singapore, and increasingly Hong Kong, where the interests of society trump individual rights. Rather, I propose that we consider the issue through a utilitarian prism, where all the potential benefits and harms of childhood spanking are carefully weighed. Moreover, the debate about whether there is a threshold of harm (as opposed to a linear dose-response relationship) from spanking should be vigorously pursued.