Rabbis challenge NYC over controversial circumcision

A group of rabbis is clashing with New York City health officials over the safety of an ancient circumcision ritual.

Three rabbis and three Jewish groups asked a federal court Thursday to block enforcement of a new regulation requiring written parental consent for a rite called "metzitzah b'peh," in Hebrew, which city health experts said can spread infection and has killed two children since 2004.

During the ritual, the person performing the circumcision attempts to cleanse the wound by sucking blood from the cut and spitting it aside.

The saliva contact puts the infant at increased risk of getting herpes simplex, a virus that is carried harmlessly by a large majority of adults but that can be deadly in newborns.

• NYC requires consent form for controversial ultra-orthodox circumcision rite
• Pediatrics group says circumcision's benefits outweigh risks
• Declining circumcision rates may add $4 billion in U.S. health care costs, researchers say

In September, New York City's Board of Health voted 9-0 to require that anyone performing the ritual obtain written consent from a parent or guardian. The parents would have to sign a form acknowledging that the city Health Department advises against the practice because of risks of herpes and other infections.

New York City's Health Department said it has documented 11 cases of the infection since 2000 among children believed to have undergone the ritual. Ten required hospitalization. Two developed brain damage. Two died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also released a report on the 11 cases this June. The agency determined at the time that 20,493 babies boys born in New York City could have potentially had direct oral suction during the almost six-year period they monitored statistics from April 2006-December 2011.

The risk of contracting herpes following Jewish ritual circumcision with confirmed or likely direct orogenital suction was determined to be 24.4 per 100,000 cases, which was 3.4 times higher than the risk for babies who did not have direct orogential suction.

The deaths prompted some doctors to call for the practice to be banned entirely, but the city's Board of Health adopted a compromise approach instead last month. Under the new rule, mohelim -- religious figures who perform the circumcision -- would also be required inform parents that the city believed the procedure was dangerous and have them sign a consent form.

No one would collect the forms, and the mohelim would be required to keep them for a year before destroying them.

In their lawsuit filed Thursday, rabbis Samuel Blum, Ahron Leiman and Shloime Eichenstein said the city had exaggerated the potential for harm and infringed on their religious freedom.

If the regulation were to take effect, rabbis "will be forced to serve as the Department's mouthpiece for dispensing opinion and 'advice' that directly undermines the required religious ritual that these mohelim regularly perform, in violation of their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise," the suit said.

The lawsuit, joined by the Central Rabbinical Congress of the USA and Canada, Agudath Israel of America and the International Bris Association, also argued that the city's safety studies were flawed and that the procedure, when performed properly, was "very safe." It said compelling the rabbis to warn against the procedure was unconstitutional.

In a statement responding to the suit, the city's health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Farley, called the regulation "lawful, appropriate and necessary."

"The city's highest obligation is to protect its children; therefore, it is important that parents know the risks associated with the practice," he said.

Concerns about the safety of metzitzah b'peh go back to at least the mid-19th century, when most Jews abandoned or modified the rite because of concerns about its role in spreading disease. Today, most Reform, Conservative and modern Orthodox mohels use gauze, or a sterile tube, to pull blood from the wound.

The ritual is still practiced widely, however, in New York City's large population of ultra-Orthodox Jews. After the regulation was adopted in September, some rabbis vowed to ignore it, saying the government had no business regulating a religious practice.

[mikerol]

/============================================================= Unfortunately it is / has been circumcision that has MADE for no end of anti-semitic sentiments. Freud found that it was the chief reason for unconscious anti-Semitism. And the myths surrounding it are at the core of the "blood libel." Thus, It's time to eliminate the Brit Milah because if that is the chief reason for being anti-Semitic or anti-Abrahamic [Islam too practices the rite] then why hang on to this left-over of human sacrifice? that traumatizesthe child, cutting off 5,000 nerves, that is the equivalent of female circumcision in the sense that it eliminates everything but the ********,and only serves the UltraOrthodox to maintain their power? After all, reform Judaism sought to eliminate the rite in the 19th century, and Jewish identity depends on being born by a Jewish mother, or converting. Here a link to an archive of the entire German and then some debate, note especially Michael Wolffsohn's two pieces . Circumcision has been controversial also within Jewry forever.


Making it a taboo to compare male with female sexual mutilation is the huge scandal in the debate. In both cases, the most sensitive and most erogenous parts of the human body are amputated and severely damaged. In both instances, the object is to cut off human
sexuality and to control.



http://evidentist.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/beschneidung-ignoranz-und-sexismus/
THE ARCHIVE TO THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE/ AMERICAN DEBATE
http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.html

Eine Diskussion ueber das Thema, mit drei Deutschen + einem Amerikanischen Psychologen.

http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/psychotherapeutenyahoogroupsde.html

http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/debatte/article108847257/Die-Vorhaut-des-Herzens.html

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/meinung/andere-meinung/gastkommentar-zur-beschneidungsdebatte-danke-deutschland/7160872.html


http://www.facebook.com/mike.roloff1?ref=name

http://www.roloff.freehosting.net/index.html

Member Seattle Psychoanalytic Institute and Society


--

[imitur]

All arguments for or against infant circumcision aside, (I'm opposed to the idea) can even the Jews who are reading this agree that oral suction is unsanitary and risky? It's amazing that this does not violate health code. I'm libertarian and all for the first amendment, but the first amendment does not protect the right to put another persons life in danger. At least use some sort of barrier so there is no direct contact between the mouth and the baby's *****. (or better yet, don't circumcise at all, but that's a different argument)

That said, I do disagree with this consent form. It requires that the Mohel dispense an opinion which is not his own, the parents need to do their own research. It's best just to require better sanitation during the procedure.

[JanetheWriter]

I attended the September Board of Health meeting where this proposal was approved and as I understand it, the mohel will need to tell the parents that it is the opinion of the Department of Health (not his own) that oral suction carries a risk of herpes transmission and is not recommended.

It also is worth noting that in the 19th century, as scientific knowledge about disease transmission increased, most rabbinic authorities dispensed with oral suction in favor of using a glass pipette or gauze for the suction portion of the procedure. Only a relatively small number of ultra-Orthodox Jews--who shun secular life and outside influences--still use this method. Nonetheless, in light of the illness and death that have resulted in the last decade, some action needs to be taken.

[micmac666]

Freaky and unnecessary.

[JackieNO]

"very safe." Its a very safe WOUND that they inflict on babies?

The parts of the ***** that are cut off are the most highly innervated parts of the human male. A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost. The lips, fingertips and nipples have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous. To do this to a newborn baby is creepy, child abuse and a human rights VIOLATION.

Baby boy ***** parts removal should already be considered illegal under the 1996 federal law banning genital cutting -- 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Those saying that preventing the cutting off of ***** parts of a baby boy violates the cutter's freedom of religion, are way out there in irrational land. One's religion ends where their knife touches another human's body. AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH OFF BABY *****!!!!! The idea that another human's ritual (rite) trumps ones right to body parts is insane and creepy.

No human should be subjected to sensory system harm as well as a forced decrease of sexual function and PLEASURE for life!