subscribe Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Subscribe now
Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng at the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg. Picture: REUTERS
Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng at the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg. Picture: REUTERS

Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng’s broad interpretation of “violence” in his judgment prohibiting spanking as all “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill someone or something”, could have ridiculous consequences.

For example, as a medical doctor it is occasionally necessary for me to stitch lacerations on small children, which I am usually able to do without general anaesthetic or sedation with a parent calming them.

In state hospitals, where anaesthetics are not available for small procedures, children often need to be held down. Injecting a local anaesthetic into the skin around a laceration is painful but necessary to allow me to continue with the rest of the procedure pain free.

But according to the chief justice’s interpretation of his chosen definition of “violence” I could be in trouble with the law. Did I intentionally hurt the child with a physical force? Absolutely I did. It is certainly not by mistake, and the injection hurts more than any hiding.

So now I am a criminal for helping a child — along with parents who spank their children.

Dr Allan Donkin
Somerset West

subscribe Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Subscribe now

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Speech Bubbles

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.