Thoughts on piercing children?

[Maya]

I thought this was interesting, I don't see the difference between hurting a child against thier will and abuse.

Posted on Wed, Jul. 04, 2007

To passer-by, crying child's ear-piercing rings of abuse
BY SUZANNE PEREZ TOBIAS
The Wichita Eagle

Could piercing a child's ears be child abuse?

Marilyn Johnson thought so when she heard a girl's screams in a Wichita Wal-Mart on Sunday -- and she reported it to police.

She said a child was having her ears pierced "against her will" at the store's jewelry counter, and the girl's cries were ignored by her mother and the store employee doing the piercing.

"This little girl was about 5 years old and was crying her eyes out," Johnson said. "Her face was beet red, and she was screaming and coughing and saying things like, 'I don't want this! It hurts! Please stop!' She was grabbing her ears so the adults couldn't touch them."

Johnson says she approached the girl's mother and the store employee and said, "Is this really necessary?"

Both women said nothing but continued trying to pierce the girl's ears, Johnson said.

So Johnson called 911 from her cell phone.

"We're forever being told we should report any suspected child abuse," said Johnson, 53, a Wichita landlord who founded Heart Bandits American Eskimo Dog Rescue.

"I saw a child crying and screaming and pleading for someone not to do something to her," she said. "And if that's not child abuse, I don't know what is."

When police arrived at the store at Pawnee and Broadway, they spoke with Johnson and the girl's mother, "then informed me that I was out of line," Johnson said. "The officers took my personal information and offered to walk with me to purchase my... items."

Johnson said she left the store without buying anything.

Wichita police spokesman Gordon Bassham said no law was being broken by the girl's mother or the employee doing the piercing.

At the request of a Wal-Mart official, the officers issued Johnson a warning for trespassing and escorted her from the store, Bassham said.

Store officials referred calls about the incident to corporate headquarters. Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman issued this written response:

"Ear piercing is a service that Wal-Mart offers to our customers of all ages. A parent or legal guardian's signature is required if the person having their ears pierced is under 18 years old, which was the case in this instance," Fogleman said.

"The child's mother indicated more than once through the ear-piercing process that she wanted her daughter's ears pierced."

Asked how the store handles incidents of children who oppose piercings, Fogleman said: "Local management has discretion based on the individual circumstance."

Ear piercing has long been the subject of controversy among parents. For some, piercing an infant or young child's ears has deep-rooted cultural or religious meaning. Others pierce babies' ears because of family traditions, or simply because they like the look or want to more easily identify the baby as a girl.

Several popular online parenting forums have featured lengthy discussions on the topic. A question posted to BabyCenter.com in October 2003 prompted more than 830 comments, ranging from outrage to agreement over piercing young children's ears.

"I had my daughter's ears done when she was 6 months old. She did cry, but just for about 10 seconds," said a mom named Jennie. "It was much easier than getting shots. Her ears have healed perfectly and she looks absolutely beautiful."

Other parents recalled children begging to have their ears pierced, then screaming or crying during the procedure.

Kansas law requires written and notarized consent from a parent or legal guardian before performing body piercing or tattooing on someone under 18. The law does not spell out whether piercings or tattoos can be forcibly administered.

"The parent was not, in the eyes of the officers, doing anything illegal," said Bassham, the police spokesman. "This could have been a cultural thing for the mother, or a religious thing. There are so many factors at work.

"For us as law enforcement to try and predict the reasons and the motivations behind this is not possible, and that's not our area."

The mother was not identified by police or store officials.

Johnson says she's glad she reported the incident to police, even though a Wal-Mart manager said she would no longer be allowed in the store.

She plans to talk to local legislators about the possibility of changing state law to spell out more clearly when piercings or tattoos become possible abuse.

"I can't understand doing that to a child who's screaming and crying and clearly didn't want this done," Johnson said.

"If I'm the crazy one for calling the police, then maybe I'm crazy. But I don't think so."

[stacer]

I've always thought that a child should be the one to make the decision. I've seen babies with their ears pierced and have wondered what the hell the parents were thinking. What if the kid grows up and hates the piercings? I realize they can be taken out, but why put your kid through the trauma in the first place? I would even go so far as to liken piercing your baby to circumcision (well maybe not quite, but along the same lines). Putting a baby needlessly through a painful procedure seems barbaric, who knows what kind of memory that will create for them. Definitely leave it until they are old enough to make an informed decision on their own and realize the pain involved.

[MafiaPrincess]

Personally I have a problem with it.. I think the kid needs to be able to ask for it. And I'm anti piercing guns. They are ripe to transmit blood borne diseases, and the idiots operating them haven't the slightest clue. If my kid wanted their ears done it would be done at a decent piercing shop with a needle. Hurt less than a blunt object being forced through ones ear too.

[Byrd]

Yup, I agree, wait until they are old enough to make their own decisions. Honestly, when doing children I think they should freeze the ear lobe. Mine were done at 7 and 14 (birthday gifts from my sister - I wanted it done) and I don't remember if it hurt, or how much, but I'm sure at the time it was hell.

I think the mother and emplyee should have stopped the piercing, if I were the employee I would have asked the costumer to come back at another time when the child settled. However, I don't think the lady should have gone so far as to call the police, perhaps management would have been enough.

[Liz]

I think it should be the childs decision. Ihad my first ones done at 7 and the second ones at 8, at my request.
I don;t think babies should have thier ears done, it's just not right, and not what the child may want on the future.

If the child is screaming and crying, begging not to have it done, then I think it should not be done!! The mother in this case is an idiot in my opinion, why would she want to subject her child to this? Against her will no less!

[greysmom]

In this particular instance, I wonder about the mother's motivation. If your child is screaming & crying, begging to not have this done and saying that it hurts, why would you continue to inflict the procedure , unless you're some sort of control freak. Makes me wonder about the woman's general parenting skills.
I don't think the lady who called the police over-reacted at all. I do think that Wal-Mart officials over-reacted by escorting her from the store & by banning her from future shopping there. Yet another example of Wal-Mart's poor judgement and questionable business practices.

[Jagsdad]

I agree.i had my ear pierced when i was 14.it only hurt for a minute but it was my decision had people tell us to get my daughters ears pierced as a baby and we said no.

[bigcat80]

I would have to say that I agree that it should be the child's decision. I know with my neice she begged her mom to let her get her ears pierced, and my sister is a licensed body peircer. She explained to her daughter that there would be some pain and what she had to do to keep them clean , she then told her to really think about it. About a week later my neice opted out of having them done and said she would wait awhile because she didn't want it to hurt. Some parents have to realize that their children are not "stupid" and know what they like and don't. Also some parents need to learn how to respect what the child is saying to them and not just chalk it up to them behaving like a "baby".

[MzzLyn]

I personally had my ears pierced when I was a baby, and I am so glad that my mom did that cause I'm a big baby when it comes to pain, but love having earrings.

I don't think the lady had to call the police, but the mother did probably go too far by forcing her child to get her ears pierced when the child clearly did not want to.

as for the police saying that it the mother might've done it for religious/cultural reason and that makes it ok, makes me wonder what they would have said or done if Walmart was offering female circumcision and the child was screaming crying and refusing to do it.

[Doxiebabies]

I can't see the jump from ear piercing to circumcision. One is mutilation of the body, and irreversible, where as ear piercing is reversible, and may leave a tiny pin point type scar.
I had my ears done at six months, and also had my daughter's done at six months. While some may see it as barbaric, it's the norm in some cultures.
My daughter was asleep while it was done by my grandmother. She whimpered, and then went back to sleep. I doubt very much that she felt much, or remembers it. Had she decided she didn't like it, the earrings could be removed with no problems, and no lasting effects. (she now has 3 piercings in each ear like her mom)
I agree that forcing an upset child into having her ears done, while clearly it was not what she wanted, a form of abuse. The ear piercing alone, IMO is not. I think it was handled badly from the start, and would hate to see ear piercing labled as child abuse in the future.