Opinion - Would you hit a dog? Then why hit a child?
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:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Study finds vaping leads to smoking for one in three teens
By Stephen Beech Teenagers who vape are just as likely to start smoking cigarettes as young people 50 years ago, according to new research. Despite a massive fall in the number of youngsters smoking over the past half-century, scientists found that UK teens who are current vapers are as likely to take up smoking now as 1970s teenagers. The likelihood of starting to smoke cigarettes among teenagers who don't vape today is less than one in 50 (1.5%), suggests the long-term study. But that figure soars to one in three (33%) among teens who do vape, according to the findings published in the BMJ journal Tobacco Control. American researchers drew on data from three nationally representative groups of UK teens born in 1958, 1970 and 2001, respectively The National Child Development Study (NCDS) follows people born in 1958 who were children when cigarette smoking was at its historic peak. The British Cohort Study (BCS) follows children born in 1970, who were teens in the 1980s when cigarette smoking among young people was relatively widespread, and who were in their 40s before e-cigarettes were introduced. The Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) follows teens who were born in 2000–01 and who were children when e-cigarettes were introduced. The prevalence of teen smoking was assessed in 1974 among 11,969 NCDS participants, in 1986 among 6,222 BCS participants, and in 2018 among 9,733 MCS participants. The odds of smoking among 16- and 17-year-olds were estimated, based on a common set of childhood risk and protective factors; teen vaping was included as a predictor in the MCS. Factors included whether they had ever drunk alcohol by age 16 or 17; how engaged they were with education at school; and parental occupation, education, and smoking habits. Analysis of the data revealed a "steep" decline in the prevalence of cigarette smoking among teenagers, falling from 33% in 1974 to 25% in 1986, and to just 12% in 2018. Around half of the MCS participants hadn't vaped by the time they were 17, while 41% said they had previously vaped, and 11% reported current vaping. The researchers suggest that the decline in prevalence of teen smoking is down to a mix of tobacco control legislation, better public understanding of the health consequences of smoking, and a shift away from the perception of smoking as socially acceptable. They pointed out that risk factors also changed over time. For example, the percentage of teens who had started drinking by the age of 16 or 17 fell from 94% in the NCDS to 83% in the MCS. The average age at which mothers left education also rose from 15.5 in the NCDS to 17 in the MCS. The prevalence of parental smoking also fell from above 70% in the NCDS to 27% in the MCS; and fewer mothers continued smoking while pregnant in the MCS than in the two younger groups. But many factors for teen smoking remained similar across the groups, including boozing before the age of 17. To illustrate the likelihood of cigarette smoking for an "average" teenage 16 or 17 over time, the researchers worked out predicted probabilities of cigarette smoking with all risk factors included from the intergenerational data. This probability was 30% in the NCDS and 22% in the BCS. Among those who had never vaped in the MCS group, it was only around 1.5%, but 33% for the teens who reported current vaping. Study author Dr. Jessica Mongilio, of the University of Michigan, said: "This probability is especially concerning given the recent increases in e-cigarette use prevalence among UK youth, despite some initial assurances that e-cigarettes would have little appeal to them." The research team acknowledged that they were unable to account for some socio-demographic characteristics, including race and ethnicity. But Dr. Mongilio said: "While our research shows that the historic decline in the likelihood of youth cigarette smoking has continued in this recent cohort of UK youth, overall, we find that this is not the case among e-cigarette users. "Youth who had never used e-cigarettes had an estimated less than one in 50 chance of reporting weekly cigarette use at age 17, while those who had previously used e-cigarettes had over a one in 10 chance. "Youth who reported current e-cigarette use had an almost one in three chance of also reporting current cigarette use. "As such, the decline in the likelihood of cigarette smoking is waning for youth who have used e-cigarettes-about half of our sample -and has reversed for those currently using e-cigarettes." She added: "Among contemporary youth, efforts to reduce cigarette smoking should focus both on those who are currently using e-cigarettes and on the prevention of e-cigarette use among youth, to maintain the promising declines in youth nicotine use in years to come." The post Study finds vaping leads to smoking for one in three teens appeared first on Talker. Copyright Talker News. All Rights Reserved.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Medicaid At 60: The Hidden Ledger Where Coverage Slips—and Health Becomes A Gamble
Medicaid at 60: The Hidden Ledger Where Coverage Slips—and Health Becomes a Gamble getty Sixty years ago today, Medicaid was signed into law as part of a sweeping vision to expand health security to the most vulnerable Americans. What began in 1965 as a modest insurance program for low-income families has grown into a cornerstone of the U.S. health care system—serving as the financial backbone of hospitals, nursing homes, and community clinics across the country. But even as the country marks this milestone, that original promise is quietly being rewritten. Congress recently passed the ' One Big Beautiful Bill Act ,' a sweeping piece of legislation that imposes significant Medicaid cuts and eligibility restrictions. In Washington, the bill was framed as fiscal discipline. On the ground, it marked a turning point, redefining Medicaid not as a safety net that rises with need, but as a fixed line item shaped by cost ceilings and conditional access. What follows is a closer look at what happens when that guarantee begins to unravel and when the risk of getting sick becomes something people are forced to calculate for themselves. Medicaid has always done more than cover medical bills. It has been a quiet promise stitched into the fabric of American life—a recognition that the risk of getting sick is not something most families can plan for, much less afford. When that promise is pulled back, as it was last week with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , health care stops feeling like a guarantee and starts feeling like a bet. And for millions, it's a bet they will decide they cannot take. The Promise That Became a Lifeline For nearly six decades, Medicaid operated as an invisible safety net, rising automatically when the economy faltered or when a diagnosis arrived unannounced. It was a hedge against both poverty and uncertainty, a system designed to catch people before a crisis became a catastrophe. Yet the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , formally known as H.R. 1, has fundamentally altered that arrangement. Lawmakers framed the bill as an overdue act of discipline: a way to cap Medicaid's costs, impose work requirements, and make states more accountable for their share of spending. On a balance sheet, the reforms look precise—federal liabilities are clearer, projections are neater, and the fiscal horizon is less volatile. But the trade-offs are not just financial. They are psychological and behavioral, etched into the quiet decisions families make when coverage ends. Behavioral economics helps explain why these decisions rarely unfold as policy architects imagine. A New Law Redefines the Rules Medicaid was always meant to be open-ended. Its funding model guaranteed that if more people lost jobs or fell into poverty, more federal dollars would follow. This arrangement recognized that health care is inherently unpredictable, that no family can perfectly forecast when a child will need an inhaler or a parent will need surgery. By removing that guarantee, the new law transfers uncertainty away from the federal treasury and onto households already living close to the edge. For many, the first moment of impact is deceptively mundane: a letter in the mailbox stating that their coverage is ending. What comes next is shaped by powerful, almost universal forces. When Health Insurance Feels Like a Losing Bet Present bias tells people to value today's savings over tomorrow's risks. A monthly premium feels like a luxury when the refrigerator is half empty and rent is overdue. Even if they understand the danger of going without insurance, uncertainty makes the alternatives—searching for plans, calculating probabilities, comparing deductibles—feel too daunting to confront. Some will try to find new coverage. Others will quietly decide to take their chances. This isn't simply a matter of calculation. It is the predictable result of systems designed without regard for how people actually behave when the floor beneath them shifts. The Quiet Calculus Behind Walking Away Even for those who recognize the risk, the next step is often the hardest. Medicaid, for all its bureaucracy, offers clarity: you are covered. When that certainty vanishes, people must decide whether to buy coverage themselves, estimate the odds of serious illness, and navigate the complexity of health plans. The discomfort of this ambiguity often leads to avoidance. Rather than confront the possibilities, many choose to delay the decision, telling themselves they will sort it out later. Why Coverage Starts to Look Too Expensive to Keep Compounding the problem is loss aversion, the reality that losing something once held feels far worse than never having it at all. For those who have relied on Medicaid for years, the experience of being cut off is not a budget adjustment but a rupture of trust. Even when subsidies exist, many will not take the next step. Familiar ground feels safer, even when it means going uninsured and hoping the worst does not come. These psychological forces do not show up in budget projections. They appear later, in emergency rooms and bankruptcy filings, in the small tragedies of untreated illness and debt that follows people for years. The Subtle Trade-Offs That Tip the Scales Supporters of the law often point to the success of managed care as proof that fixed payments can control costs. But that comparison misses a critical distinction. Managed care transferred risk from governments to insurers, but the federal commitment to match funding remained intact. This legislation severs that link. It turns Medicaid from a guarantee into a capped liability, decoupled from the unpredictable reality of illness and economic hardship. More than sixty percent of Medicaid enrollees are children, older adults, or people living with disabilities. Communities of color rely on it disproportionately, a reflection of generational inequities in income and employment. When the program contracts, it does not simply save money. It reallocates uncertainty downward, to those least able to absorb it, and it multiplies the strain that comes with knowing a single accident or diagnosis could change everything. On the Ground: An ER Surgeon's View Dr. Kimberly Joseph, a retired trauma and emergency surgeon and former Division Chair for Trauma Critical Care and Prevention in the Department of Trauma at the Stroger Hospital of Cook County in Chicago, explains that gaps in Medicaid coverage rarely influence whether trauma patients seek emergency care, but they frequently shape what happens next. 'Problems with insurance coverage could affect the discharge process—lack of insurance or Medicaid coverage could result in delays in getting patients to inpatient rehabilitation.' The complications don't end there. She notes recurring delays in accessing home health services, wound care, or even basic medical equipment like wheelchairs and canes. These disruptions ripple far beyond the patient's bedside. 'We often had patients discharged from other hospitals and told to 'go to County' because they were uninsured ,' she says. 'That created challenges for integrating care, tracking medications, and navigating systems that weren't built to share information.' Dr. Joseph's perspective is a reminder that the consequences of cutting Medicaid are rarely immediate and never contained. They don't stay confined to policy memos or budget reports. They appear in crowded hospital corridors, in the moments when a preventable condition becomes an emergency, and in the quiet calculus that forces families to decide whether health is a risk they are willing—or able—to take. A Commitment Receding Into Memory The savings Congress projects will appear clearly on ledgers. The costs, however, surface in other ways: delayed checkups, untreated diabetes, and emergency care that arrives too late. They show up in lost wages, missed school days, and families who decide—quietly, and often without telling anyone—that health insurance is a bet they can no longer afford to make. Medicaid is not merely a welfare program. It is a promise that in an uncertain world, some risks will be shared, not carried alone. As that promise recedes, the country must confront a simple question: does it still believe that no American should be one diagnosis away from financial ruin—or is health just another wager, left to those willing to take their chances?
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Abundance in Orbit—The Case for Democrats Reclaiming NASA's Bold Vision
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. NASA is in crisis. The space agency that once embodied American ambition—proof that our government could do bold things and solve hard problems—is now unraveling before our eyes. More than 2,000 senior staff are heading for the exits. Without help from Congress, science programs will be slashed to the bone. And a permanent administrator is nowhere in sight. Unless a different vision emerges—one rooted in public ambition and scientific leadership—the U.S. risks forfeiting a field it once defined. The good news? There's a growing hunger for that kind of vision. The success of the "abundance agenda" in other policy arenas has shown that voters are ready to believe in big things again. Space should be next. Jared Isaacman, the billionaire entrepreneur and civilian astronaut many expected to lead NASA, had potential to offer exactly this kind of leadership—until his nomination was scrapped under White House scrutiny. A NASA logo is displayed at the entrance to the Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters building on June 2, 2025, in Washington, D.C. A NASA logo is displayed at the entrance to the Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters building on June 2, 2025, in Washington, was graceful in his exit, but his recent commentary has had a clear through-line: space is the high ground, one that gives any country who ventures into it a clear advantage. As Democrats struggle to connect with the American people, with recent polls showing a 30-year low in popularity, now is the time to show the U.S. electorate a path of inspiration. And the rise of the abundance agenda, applied to space sciences, can be a critical way to galvanize support. Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's bestselling book, Abundance, has shifted the conversation primarily in terms of housing abundance, and recent elections have shown the stickiness of that issue with voters. But Klein and Thompson also have a deeper diagnosis: American innovation systems are broken. Risk aversion in funding the sciences, high administrative burdens and the pressure of scientific discoveries needing to be converted into mass production, are what hold us back. Now, as scarcity politics grips Congress, Democrats can seize the opportunity to do more than defend science—they can champion it. By making the case for a bolder, federally-backed innovation agenda, they can show voters how public investment has always been the engine behind America's greatest breakthroughs. What has been referred to as a stagnating of the U.S. innovation ecosystem, and the "undermining of science in America," should be leveraged by Democrats to promise voters not just greatness, but more. As a guest on Andrew Schutlz's Flagrant podcast, former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg outlined how federally funded projects have led to monumental ideas later transformed into usable reality, including the internet itself. Still, the challenge Democrats face is significant. These sorts of projects are costly, and they don't come with any certainty, but that's the point. Unlike the private industry, profit isn't the motivating factor behind our exploration of the unknown. Helping voters see the long-term value of such investments will undoubtedly take work. But we've done it before. In May 1961, President John F. Kennedy promised America the Moon. The endeavor would demand "a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, material and facilities ... where they are already thinly spread," Kennedy said. And then, it happened. Beyond international prestige and the assurance of democracy's strength over communism, the Apollo program seeded "spin-off" technologies that reshaped everyday life. Just as important, it proved what government can accomplish when it channels its full capacity toward shared purpose. Even after Apollo, NASA had what was referred to as an "aggressive plan" that would continue to position the U.S. as a leader in the exploration and development of the space frontier. That vision was later shelved, a casualty of budget cuts and shifting political winds. Still, the principle remains: science moves when government moves with it. We saw this again with Operation Warp Speed, where President Donald Trump's Department of Health and Human Services and Defense used a "whole-of-America" approach to bring the COVID-19 vaccine to the masses, and quickly. But this spirit is fading. Republicans have seemingly turned their back on the idea of science as a public good. In response to the president's proposed cuts to NASA Science, every prior associate administrator of Science signed onto a joint letter to the House Appropriations Committee warning of the potential reduction of funds. As Congress grapples with what funds to provide NASA in this new fiscal year, Democrats should ask themselves: can we be the party that reclaims science as a shared American project? Can we speak to voters' appetite for ambition? A promise to pursue abundance—in space, in science, in national purpose—may be the boldest and most unifying offer Democrats can make. Trump has promised voters a path of greatness, but he's steering our science agencies dangerously off course. It's high time for Democrats to chart a better one. Riley L. Roberts is a writer, speechwriter, and strategist whose work spans politics, business, sports, and culture. As a ghostwriter and collaborator, he has authored or contributed to more than a dozen books, shaped widely published op-eds and essays—from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal to TIME, VOGUE, and The Atlantic, among other outlets—and crafted speeches delivered at the White House, the U.N., foreign parliaments, TED conferences, and beyond. Matthew Beddingfield is a whistleblower attorney based in Washington, D.C., and is currently writing a book on the Apollo 1 fire that occurred in January 1967. He previously worked as a legal reporter for Bloomberg. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
