MIND MOVES: The smacking debate hits hard. It smacks of inappropriate intrusion into parenting practices, tying the hands of parents yet again in their reasonable attempts to restrain and discipline their offspring.
It strikes at the heart of parents' rights to decide what is in the best interests of their own children. It questions generations of parenting, even the practices of one's own parents. It suggests that one may be psychologically unhealthy if one has been brought up by loving parents who administered the occasional, well-placed so-called "reasonable chastisement".
If a slap causes so much damage, have I been emotionally harmed by the slaps I received in school and at home when a child? It begs the awful question about one's much loved parents: were they people who denied my human rights and engaged in primitive punitive practices that have psychologically damaged me?
Finally, it evokes an extraordinary category of guilt: guilt at revising one's view of one's parents, particularly if they were committed and caring people. Guilt at revising one's view of oneself: after all if you have smacked your own children, are they harbouring some secret grudge against you? Worse still, have they suffered some subterranean psychological pain that may emerge in later years? Have you not only failed in your own parenting but your grandchildren will also be parented inappropriately in ways that their parents have learnt from you?
Whacked by all these possibilities, it is easier to see anti-smacking as psychological poppycock: more misguided meddling by a profession intent on insinuating itself into an already fragile parental psyche by pointing out, in patronising psychobabble, the error of tried and trusted parenting practices.
You are not alone in your view. As many as two-thirds of parents reportedly regard smacking as an immediate, mild, effective means of alerting their children to danger, putting a quick and successful stop to bad behaviour and signalling to the child that their behaviour must come to an end NOW. It is usually described as mild, infrequently used, kindly administered and as the last resort after repeated warnings.
Children need discipline. Parents are being criticised for their failure to discipline their children. They are told that their children are spoilt, ill-mannered, disrespectful, demanding, out of control and in need of discipline. Then one of the classic means of chastisement is criminalised. It's time for parents to give up - damned if they do and damned if they don't. Go away, psychologists, leave us alone.
So why is the weight of sociological analysis, psychological research, paediatric perspective and even restorative justice against corporal punishment? Why have so many countries examined the evidence and decided to legislatively decry this form of discipline? There are many reasons.
The classic clichéd example is the utter confusion caused to the child who is hit by a parent for hitting his or her younger sibling on the grounds that they are 'smaller' or do not understand. This also models a way of solving problems that is a serious problem in our society today. If it is by force that results are obtained then this is the start of a culture of using force, of bullying in the playground, aggression on the street, violence in the home and vindication of the practice of using might as right.
Secondly, you may be in control but others are not. The child who bullies your child, the teenager who assaults your adolescent, the adult who attacks you or abuses your elderly parents will almost inevitably have inconsistent, harsh, punitive punishment allied to neglect in their background. Unless we create a culture of kindness, enforced and enshrined, we cannot expect to live in one.
Thirdly, for some, it becomes the only way of communicating with their child, slapped when bold, ignored when good. Do not those on whom the occasional slap was used judiciously, who in turn have rarely felt the need to resort to slap, not have a duty to assist those who are into their fourth generation of physical abuse justified by the claim that "it never did me any harm" and that it is not illegal? It is clinically noteworthy that most adults can recall the events that did no harm with greater clarity than many other childhood occurrences. The emotional impact of slapping is documented beyond dispute. If you heard some childhood memories, I think you would agree.
As to what to do with the out-of-control child, the child who teases and taunts, tries the patience of a saint and the sanity of adults? Get help for both of you. The end of slapping is not the end of discipline. It is the beginning of a strategic approach to the stresses of childrearing.
Most children respond to consistent, gentle, predictable praise for good behaviour and to no reward for bad behaviour. They respond when bad behaviour is ignored or met with parental disapproval and surprise that such a good child could behave so badly. Children learn well when solutions are never violent, either in what they witness, receive or are allowed to display.
There is a dangerous message that if hitting is not illegal then it must be okay. But I would be amazed if upon consideration you really, truly, honestly believe that anyone should have the right to hit anyone.
Marie Murray is director of psychology at St Vincent's Hospital, Fairview, Dublin 3.