HAVING worked for many years with like-minded colleagues in the RSSPCC (now Children 1st) and other organisations to outlaw the physical punishment of children, I fully support the bill sponsored by John Finnie towards this aim.
I also agree with much of what Andrew Tickell has written on this issue (Don’t pretend you can outlaw smacking then not prosecute any parents, April 7). In particular, it would be ludicrous to remove the defence of “justifiable assault”, or “reasonable chastisement” and not put in place mechanisms to prosecute breaches.
Where I disagree with Andrew is in respect of his comments about “sending messages”. In my opinion, we need to take a nuanced view about how the legislation can be implemented without the wholesale prosecution of parents. In this respect, the “messages” are key if changes to societal and cultural attitudes are to be achieved. In our campaigns we took the view that the key to that change lay in education and information, not just about the ill-effects of physical punishment, but also about alternative and more effective methods of discipline in a loving and nurturing environment. It is also important that police and prosecutors approach each incident in a commonsense way, assessing it on its individual merits and dealing with it accordingly.
Andrew mentions that Sweden outlawed physical punishment in 1979 and that 58 countries have since followed suit. The good news is that none of these bans have resulted in a flood of prosecution of parents. We have every right to be confident that Scotland won’t be any different.
Douglas Turner
Edinburgh
THE letter to The Sunday Times from three MSPs claiming that assisted dying would reflect a soulless society is at best patronising and at worst sadism.
In my experience, the anti-end-of-life-release brigade equate lack of pain with quality of life, something which reflects a complete lack of empathy and understanding. Rather, it indicates that these people claim some authority over other people’s lives and a determination to ignore their justified desire for release.
As a nurse for some 42 years, I tended many patients to whom I would gladly have extended the same mercy as I can to my suffering dog, and could do nothing for them other than make them as comfortable as I could and hold their hand in their moments of desperation.
The state does not own me. I do not subscribe to the delusion of religion. I am a cancer survivor with a limited prospect: I have experienced pain so severe that I pleaded with staff to let me die, and when I reach the same point again I do not intend to ask, I will do it myself. If I am unlucky enough to be incapable of killing myself, should I just accept my lot to suit the beliefs of people I would not see in my way on a cold, clear day?
Who are these people to tell me that I cannot obtain the assistance of someone who cares enough to help? What gives them the right to decide whether I should or should not continue in an existence with which I am done? I am not usually a spiteful individual but I will make an exception. I hope that these alleged democrats each find themselves afflicted with something incurable, incapacitating and extremely painful, to the point of utter despair and no hope of intervention. Then they can tell me whether I should live an existence or end a life.
Les Hunter
Lanark
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here