Controversial circumcision ritual led to infant's death from herpes, says death certificate

istockphoto

(CBS News) The New York District Attorney's office is reportedly investigating the death of a 2-week-old boy who underwent metzizah b'peh, a controversial Orthodox Jewish ritual that involves orally sucking the blood from the circumcised baby's penis. According to the unidentified boy's death certificate, he contracted herpes simplex virus type 1 from the ritual, and passed away at a Brooklyn hospital in September 2011, the New York Daily News reported.

"We are looking into the circumstances surrounding the death of this child," said Brooklyn DA spokesman Jerry Schmetterer told the Daily News.

It is important to note that the metzitzah b'peh, also known as mezizah or oral suction, is not a commonly practiced part of the Jewish circumcision ceremony. In the uncommon ritual, the mohel (or rabbi performing the circumcision) uses his mouth to draw blood away from the circumcision wound. While in the past this has helped limit complications from the procedure, the danger of passing diseases orally, such as herpes, has led many to use a sterilized glass tube as a barrier or a straw to clean the wound.

According to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, most adults have oral herpes but don't show symptoms, and the disease is spread easily from saliva to a cut or wound. Because the immune system of newborns is not developed enough to fight serious infection, herpes infections pose grave risks to infants.

The department does not recommend infants undergo this ritual because there is no proven way to reduce herpes transmission risk. The department suggests parents speak to their mohel before a circumcision, since some parents might not know whether or not he'll perform the ritual.

This isn't the only documented case of a child contracting herpes during the ceremony. In 2005, twin boys died after contracting the virus from their mohel. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, he was banned from performing the ritual.

Traditional Jewish circumcisions, known as a bris, can also raise a baby's risk for a urinary tract infection, studies suggest. A 2008 study showed that out of 162 babies under two months old hospitalized for urinary tract infections in Israel, 108 were boys, Haaretz reported. "We saw the same phenomenon in each hospital - a wave of urinary tract infections around the ninth day after pregnancy," Prof. Yaakov Amir, who conducted the study, said. There was no discernible time pattern for girls. It was also more common for babies who underwent circumcision by a mohel rather than a physician to suffer from an infection, which could also be due to poor bandaging practices, the study found.

Circumcisions are tied to health benefits, however.

Men who have been circumcised have a lower risk for infection with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, according to the CDC, and the procedure seems to offer some protection against genital ulcer, Chlamydia, and penile cancer.

The NYC Health Department has more in "Before the Bris: How to Protect your Infant Against Herpes."

[westerng]

the health benefits arent provable, ones sexual activity once reaching puberty throw all statistics out the window because human sexual activity is untraceable. The only proven historical reason circumcision became popular in this country was because it was assumed that damaging the ***** by removing the foreskin caused erectional dysfunction and was deemed a safe way of making "psychotic" aka homosexual men emotionally and empathetically blank to others cause so they could no longer feel their genitals. personally, i throw this in with footbinding and corsets, because the only thing that circumcision does is make you unable to have erections after about the age of 40 without ed medication cause the tissue has all but dried out.

[rh0123]

Sorry, but know too many adults (generally first-generation Americans) who have SUFFERED to have circumcision as adults. This was due to infection, adhesion, or cancer.

Maybe you are a lucky one who didn't have these problems, but I don't think the 15 year old boy and 60 year old man who had this done would have regretted circumcision as an infant.

It was NOT my culture (my father was not circumcised, and though he doesn't regret it, he knows many who do regret not being circumcised as an infant - try not being able to pee because of an adhesion), and I am an atheist so there is no religious mandate. My spouse and I talked with our child's doctor about it, local anesthesia was used and pain medication was given afterwards. It was NOT a decision to be taken lightly, but it took away a significant hygiene issue from our sons. I do think it is barbaric to not give any anesthetic and not have a doctor in attendance, even if a religious person is supposed to perform the ceremony (and yes, this story REALLY creeped me out, there should be sexual abuse charges filed - transferring herpes isn't something that happens with very brief contact).


Let's also just say that many women like me KNOW that their man's sex life is not impaired. Maybe if you paid attention to your partner, you'd have a good sex life.

Next you'll be telling us that you are offended that your parents changed your diaper.

[Perkeo7]

You're vastly overstating the likelihood of a circumcision being necessary as a young man or as an adult. Even in the US, where doctors in general are ignorant about the foreskin and reach for their knife as soon as they see one, such cases are rare. In European countries they are extremely rare. Instead of hearsay why don't you provide the statistics for such cases in the US?

I'll give you a couple you can Google: In order to prevent ONE penile cancer you have to circumcise and permanently mutilate 150,000 babies. To prevent ONE urinary tract infection (UTI), which can be treated with antibiotics, you have to permanently diminish the sexuality of 200 babies.

If you take into account that up to 100 babies die every year in the US from circumcision, and that thousands of circumcisions are botched, sometimes horribly, then you can see why no medical association on the world recommends it. Not even Israel's.

[JackieNO]

In studies of the US population, there hasn't been an observed protection against HIV, HPV and other STDs by cutting off parts of baby boys.

However, it is now clear that cutting of baby boy pen is parts is HARM. The long term harm is huge with nerve damage and harm to the sensory system and sexual dysfunction at a young age. A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost. The lips, nipples and fingertips have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous. Doing this to a baby is way creepy.

All humans should have the right to keep all of their body parts, all of their sensory system and certainly all of the natural sexual pleasure and function.

[Hugh_Intactive]

The "health benefits" of circumcision are bogus or exaggerated - slight reductions in rare ailments of late onset that can be better prevented by other means (such as simple washing) or treated (often without surgery) as they arise.

The health risks of circumcision go all the way to death: a baby can only afford to lose two tablespoons of blood before he is in danger, there is a tiny artery near the usual circumcision wound, and disposable diapers can easily conceal that much blood. This death took five months to come to light. How many never do?

Even when he survives, some complications may not be known until he is adult and they impair his sex life. Or he may just hate the violation of his body. This is a human rights issue, and his right to decide the fate of his own normal healthy non-renewing body parts trumps his parents' right to practise their culture, folk-medicine or religion on him.