Corpun file 21151
Click to enlarge |
British Medical Journal, London, 22 December 1934, p.1178
Correspondence
Corporal Punishment
A Plea for the Exemption of Girls
SIR,-I would be grateful if you would publish the attached
correspondence with a view to finding out what is the opinion of
the profession on the question whether the caning of girls can be
justified on medical grounds.
I am, etc.,
R. L. KITCHING.
Wetherby, Yorks, Nov. 28th.
___________________
Inglewood, Wetherby, Yorkshire.
October 14th, 1934.
SIR,
About nine months ago I submitted to the Board of Education some
criticisms of Corporal Punishment Regulations which seemed to me
to lead to the conclusion that the caning of girls in public
elementary schools should be prohibited on medical grounds. The
reply was to the effect that the general policy of the Board was
to leave the question of corporal punishment to the discretion of
the local education authorities, and that the Board "have no
reason to apprehend any abuse of this discretion which could be
remedied by regulation."
It seemed to me that the policy of the Board was unsound, for the
reason that it left the medical question of the effect of caning
on the health of the school girl for the decision of individual
county medical officers. It seemed to me that, when a county
council refers a question of this sort to the county M.O., it is
not a personal opinion that is wanted. I submitted this point to
the Ministry of Health, and suggested that what is wanted in such
a case is the opinion of the appropriate department of the
Ministry of Health; and I asked if I might have an opinion from
the Ministry of Health on the risks of caning girls during the
menstrual period. I was informed on behalf of the Minister of
Health "that the matter is not one within his
jurisdiction," and that my request should be addressed to
your department.
I beg to submit two points:
1. The Corporal Punishment Regulations make it clear that
young children must not be caned, but there is nothing in the
regulations to suggest that a girl may be too old to be
caned. Surely, if it is necessary to make regulations to
prevent men caning young children it is just as necessary to
make a regulation to prevent the caning of those girls who
have developed the physique of womanhood?
2. I submit that the paramount reason for prohibiting the
caning of girls in any circumstances is that it is the only
certain means by which caning during the menstrual period can
be prevented. There are, I suggest, two objections to caning
during menstruation that are indisputable: (i) It must happen
that some of the girls who are caned are suffering severe
menstrual pain at the time, so that the pain inflicted must
be more severe than was intended, and therefore may be more
severe than is safe. (ii) Some of the girls must be suffering
menstrual nervous strain, and the added strain may be more
than the girl can safely bear.
It is obvious that caning is a form of punishment which
involves serious risks, but it may well be that in the case of
boys the risks must be accepted. The point I would submit to the
Medical Department is that the risks are so much greater in the
case of girls that this method of punishment cannot be justified.
I would be grateful if I might be informed of the opinion of your
department on this point. If your department is not prepared to
advise the total abolition of corporal punishment in the case of
girls, would you consider the suggestion that caning should be
authorized in their case only between the ages of 8 and 10? I
would be glad to know whether your department would make this
suggestion to the Board.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
R. L. KITCHING.
The Secretary, Medical Department,
Board of Education.
___________________
Board of Education, Whitehall, S.W.1.
October 18th, 1934.
SIR,
In reply to your letter of the 14th inst., I am directed to state
that the Board are not satisfied that any alteration of policy
with regard to corporal punishment is necessary. The Board's
views in the matter are set out in the paragraph on discipline
contained in the Handbook of Suggestions to Teachers
(paragraph 4, page 12). Copies of this publication may be
purchased directly from H.M. Stationery Office, York Street,
Manchester, or through any bookseller (price 2s. net).
I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,
D. Du B. DAVIDSON.
__________________
November 3rd, 1934.
SIR,
Please accept my thanks for your letter of October 18th. Corporal
punishment is not mentioned in the paragraph to which you refer
me, but it is stated that "some special arrangements for
disciplinary purposes . . . are undoubtedly necessary in Mixed
Schools . . . and in any large Mixed Schools the head teacher
will do well to delegate a considerable measure of authority to
one of the assistants of the other sex . . ."
I infer from this that it is the view of the Board that girls
should not be caned by men. On the other hand the county
councils, in their Corporal Punishment Regulations, give
authority to head masters to cane girls. The suggestion I have
made, as a family doctor is that girls should not be caned at all
by anyone.
I should not have presumed to make any suggestions to the Board
of Education if I had not been convinced, first, that the family
doctor has far better opportunities than anyone else for judging
the effects of caning, and, secondly, that the suggestion I made
would be supported by an overwhelming majority of family doctors,
and probably of all doctors.
In view of the fact that the Board are not satisfied that any
alteration of policy with regard to corporal punishment is
necessary, I have no doubt that the right course for me is to
raise the matter in one of the medical journals. I propose,
therefore, if you have no objection, to send a copy of the letter
I sent to the Medical Department, with your reply and this
letter, to the British Medical Journal.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
R. L. KITCHING.
The Secretary, Board of Education.
___________________
Board of Education, Whitehall, S.W.1.
November 27th, 1934.
SIR,
With reference to your letter of November 23rd, I am directed to
state that the Board have no objection to your taking the action
proposed in your letter of November 3rd.
I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,
D. Du B. DAVIDSON.
Follow-up: 5 January 1935 - Correspondence: Corporal Punishment for Girls
| |
About this website
Search this site
Article: School corporal punishment in Britain
Other external links: UK school CP
Archive up to 1975: UK
Video clips
Picture index
|