Opinion - Would you hit a dog? Then why hit a child?

In much of the world, we have outlawed physical violence against adults, including the physical punishment of women, prisoners and military recruits. It is also illegal in many places to hit a dog. In the U.S., for example, kicking or hitting a dog can result in criminal charges.
And yet, parents' spanking and hitting of children in the name of 'discipline' is legal in the U.S. and in more than 130 other countries around the world.
A recent study found that American parents are significantly more likely to consider it acceptable to hit a child than to hit a dog. We are in a cultural moment where physically punishing a dog is viewed as more morally objectionable than doing the same to human children.
Despite decades of research showing that physical punishment is harmful and ineffective, its use persists in households around the U.S. and the world. The question is not whether hitting children causes harm, rather, it's why society allows it, knowing that it does.
My colleagues and I analyzed data from 195 studies in 92 countries and found no evidence that physical punishment has any benefits. On the contrary, our findings show that physical punishment of children is linked to exclusively negative consequences, including increased aggression, lower academic performance and a higher risk of depression, anxiety and other emotional difficulties later in life.
Imagine for a moment that your boss, supervisor or teacher hits you for not meeting expectations. Your immediate response would likely include physical stress reactions such as sweating and a racing heart, as well as emotional responses such as anger, sadness, anxiety or fear. These responses are evolutionary and adaptive, designed to prepare us for fight or flight in the face of threats. When such violence is repeated, it can lead to a state of constant anxiety and fear that the next blow could come at any moment. The same happens to a child.
Parents tend to use spanking and other forms of physical punishment with good intentions, hoping to correct or manage children's misbehavior. Yet, the physical stress and emotional responses from physical punishment can be particularly consequential early in life, when brains and biological systems are developing in response to experience.
In a neuroscientific study, my team examined brain activity in a group of children who had been spanked in their first 10 years of life, compared to a similar group who had never been spanked. Using fMRI, we showed the children images of happy, neutral and fearful or threatening faces. The children who had been spanked exhibited heightened brain activation in response to fearful/threatening faces, specifically in regions associated with detecting and responding to environmental threats. Other studies have also found reduced cortex gray matter volume in adults who experienced corporal punishment during childhood.
Many adults who were hit as children remember it as 'discipline,' not violence, and often insist they 'turned out fine.' But this reasoning overlooks the broader picture. Millions of people around the world smoke without visibly seeing lung damage, yet we widely accept the health risks of smoking because science has made them clear. Similarly, even if physical punishment doesn't leave visible marks, research shows that it significantly increases the risks to children's mental, emotional and developmental health.
Some argue that the government shouldn't interfere in private family matters, such as how parents choose to discipline their children. But let's reconsider that argument, and apply it to women. We rightly find it unacceptable for a man to hit his wife, regardless of it being a 'private' matter.
Why should it be acceptable to hit children, who are smaller, more vulnerable and entirely dependent on adults for their safety and well-being? Protecting children from harm is not government overreach; it is a fundamental moral and societal responsibility.
The right to physical safety that is afforded to adults, including prisoners, soldiers, and even to dogs, should be extended to children. Simply put, all countries should prohibit the physical punishment of children in the home, school and all settings.
Such legislation should not be punitive, but written into family codes instead of criminal codes, and paired with educational campaigns, similar to those that shifted social norms around smoking. Additionally, support for parents through initiatives like parenting programs is essential to promote non-violent discipline strategies.
We've long stopped justifying hitting adults, and we recoil at hurting an animal. It's time we ensure the same standard applies to children, so we can one day say with pride that they, too, are fully protected from violence.
Jorge Cuartas, assistant professor at NYU Steinhardt, is an internationally recognized expert on the health and developmental impacts of physical punishment in childhood. He has authored over 30 scientific articles on the subject, published in leading journals such as Nature Human Behaviour, The Lancet and Child Development.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

2 hours ago

• Newsweek

Aflac Cyber Breach May Expose Customer Health Data, Social Security Numbers

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The American health insurance giant Aflac said it had suffered a cybersecurity breach that has potentially exposed customer information related to health, claims, Social Security numbers, and other personal details. "We have engaged leading third-party cybersecurity experts to support our response to this incident," Aflac said in a statement disclosing the breach, which occurred on June 12, 2025, and which the company said was stopped "within hours". "While the investigation remains in its early stages, in the spirit of transparency and care for our customers, we are sharing that our preliminary findings indicate that the unauthorized party used social engineering tactics to gain access to our network. "Additionally, we have commenced a review of potentially impacted files. It is important to note that the review is in its early stages, and we are unable to determine the total number of affected individuals until that review is completed. "The potentially impacted files contain claims information, health information, social security numbers, and/or other personal information, related to customers, beneficiaries, employees, agents, and other individuals in our U.S. business." This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.

Axios

3 hours ago

• Axios

Axios-Ipsos poll: Americans want to force presidents to share health records

Eight in 10 Americans want legally required and publicly released cognitive tests and disease screenings for U.S. presidents — and age limits on the presidency, according to the latest Axios-Ipsos American Health Index. About 3 in 4 say politicians aren't honest about their health, and that presidents should be legally required to share their medical records with the public. Why it matters: The issue of presidents' health has become particularly poignant in light of the decline of Joe Biden, who was 82 when he left office, and the return of Donald Trump, who's now 79 and was the oldest president to be inaugurated in U.S. history. Trump rarely has offered glimpses into his health records. His team released a memo after his physical in April that pronounced him in "excellent health," but political foes such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom have questioned Trump's mental fitness and whether he's up to the job. Biden's White House physician had claimed that Biden was in great shape for a man of his age. But during his presidency, Biden's staff tried to conceal his declining health. Biden's recent cancer diagnosis has drawn new attention to the lack of legal requirements for public officials to disclose their medical status. What we're watching: Democrats surveyed in the poll appear to favor such disclosures slightly more than Republicans — and, overall, Americans are less interested in forcing past presidents to share their records than requiring current ones to do so. What they're saying:"The American public is sending a very clear signal that they don't trust the information they're receiving, that it's not sufficient, and that public officials should be held to a higher standard when it comes to being forthcoming about their health," said Mallory Newall, Ipsos vice president for U.S. public affairs. "Americans want more transparency about their elected officials' health. They're looking for a younger generation to serve." The big picture: The balance between public officials' medical privacy and the public's right to know has swung sharply toward more disclosure, the poll showed. It found strong bipartisan appetite for increased transparency about public officials' health, and for a maximum age at which officeholders and Supreme Court justices can serve. (Respondents were not asked what age the maximum age should be.) By the numbers: 72% of Americans strongly or somewhat disagree with the idea that most elected officials are honest with the American public about their health. 74% overall agree that there should be a legal requirement for any current president to share their health records. The public is much more divided on former presidents' health, with just 40% agreeing there should be a legal requirement to share their health records and 57% opposed. About 8 in 10 Americans broadly favor age limits for Supreme Court justices and members of Congress, as well as for presidents. More Democrats (83%) favor a legal requirement that the current president share health records than Republicans (70%) or independents (72%). The same goes for age limits and for mandatory cognitive screening and disease testing with sharable results. But in each case, more than three-quarters of Republicans, Democrats and independents support those requirements. Between the lines: Public officials aren't held to any legal standards for disclosing their medical status. While America is getting older and life expectancies generally have increased, questions about aging politicians' fitness to serve and their ability to make critical judgements have moved to the forefront. That's partly driven by a nonstop news cycle that keeps many in the limelight and can expose frailties. But the rules for talking about their health are mostly rooted in traditions like the president's annual physical. Former White House physician Jeffrey Kuhlman has argued for a battery of cognitive tests, rather than a screening exam, to assess presidents' memory, language and problem-solving skills. Methodology: This Axios/Ipsos Poll was conducted June 13-16, 2025, by Ipsos' KnowledgePanel®. This poll is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 1,104 general population adults age 18 or older.

Yahoo

18 hours ago

• Yahoo

Scientists unite with AI to record dreams

Dreaming is a fascinating state where creativity runs wild, crafting vivid, cinematic scenes that can feel as real as everyday life—until you wake up and they vanish into memory or disappear from your recollection altogether. But what if there were a way to capture, record, and playback your dreams in the real world? At ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories in Kyoto, Japan, a group of scientists unveiled a complex system that uses functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and AI to 'record' people's dreams and play them back in a rough, estimated form. The experiment focused on closely observing the brain's electrical and blood flow activity in a select group of volunteers as they slept. To achieve this, researchers combined an electroencephalogram (EEG) with an fMRI machine, allowing participants to spend several nights sleeping while their brain activity was recorded. During the REM stage of sleep—when brain activity surges and dreams unfold—participants were gently awakened and asked to recount their dreams. This process was repeated hundreds of times, creating a rich database that linked distinct brain-scan patterns to specific dream imagery. Using this carefully constructed database, scientists employed deep learning algorithms to attempt to reconstruct visual content while the volunteers slept. During the tests, the system achieved approximately 60% accuracy, rising to over 70% on more specific categories like people or objects. Professor Yukiyasu Kamitani stated, 'We were able to reveal dream content from brain activity during sleep, which was consistent with the subjects' verbal reports.' The idea of watching your dreams play out like a vintage film is undeniably captivating, but the implications for neuroscience and mental health are equally remarkable. In the future, this innovative approach could be harnessed to explore emotional and cognitive patterns in various mental health conditions, providing a non-verbal and impartial glimpse into the subconscious. As the technology advances, it holds the potential to deepen our understanding of both human consciousness and the subconscious mind. However, while the technology is still in its early stages, the results it produces are often blurry and indistinct. Key elements such as colour, motion, narrative structure, and emotion remain largely elusive for now. Currently, dreams can only be captured in retrospect, after the subject has awakened, rather than in real-time. Dr. Mark Stokes points out that "all of this would have to be done within individual subjects," meaning that a universal classifier capable of interpreting anyone's dreams is not feasible. In essence, a dream-reading machine is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Nonetheless, this experiment represents a significant leap forward in the field of "oneirography," which involves the recording and documentation of dreams. As advancements in fMRI, EEG, and AI continue, the boundary between our internal mental experiences and external observation is starting to blur. "Scientists unite with AI to record dreams" was originally created and published by Verdict, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.