Judge won't block New York City circumcision law

[SugarShack]

Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Reuters

Judge won't block New York City circumcision law
Fri Jan 11 04:03:48 UTC 2013

By Jonathan Stempel

snip

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Manhattan federal judge refused to block a New York City regulation requiring people who perform circumcisions and use their mouths to draw away blood from the wound on a baby's penis to first obtain written consent from the parents.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on Thursday refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the change to the city's health code, which some members of the city's Orthodox Jewish communities called an unwarranted government intrusion on religious freedom.

In September, the New York City Board of Health voted to require mohels, who perform circumcisions, to obtain advance consent that tells parents about the risk of a potentially fatal herpes infection linked to the ritual of metzitzah b'peh, or MBP, involving direct oral suction of the penis. Enforcement of the regulation was put on hold until Buchwald could rule on the request by the Central Rabbinical Congress of the USA and Canada, the International Bris Association and some rabbis for a preliminary injunction. New York City said it plans to begin enforcing the consent requirement even if litigation continues.

City health officials on Thursday said at least 11 infant boys have in the last several years contracted a potentially fatal form of herpes following circumcision with direct oral suction, and that two of the boys died. Opponents of the regulation have said the health department had not proven a higher incidence of neonatal herpes among boys who had received direct oral suction.

The case is Central Rabbinical Congress of the USA and Canada et al v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-07590.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

© Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013 All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/11/us-usa-newyork-circumcision-idUSBRE90A00N20130111

---

I am appalled that this is considered religious!

[DURHAM D]

1. I don't understand your comment.

[tomm2thumbs]

2. Baby Dies From Circumcision Ritual

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/baby-dies-circumcision-ritual-herpes_n_1322420.html

The boy is the second New York area infant in recent years to die from complications related to the Orthodox Jewish ritual of metzitzah b'peh, during which "the mohel places his mouth on the freshly circumcised penis to draw blood away from the cut," according to the New York City Department of Heath.


apparently there are alternatives....

The Rabbincal Council of America supports using a sterilized tube to suction the wound, FOX News observes. In a news release, the organization states the method "absolutely fulfills the precept whilst placing the infant and mohel at no additional risk."

_______

Maybe people would respect their right to religious freedom if it didn't involved killing a baby in the process.

[go west young man]

4. That's some sick shit.

It's 2013 not the stone age. They need to stop this religious infringing on their rights crap. Innocent babies deserve better. Screw their parents religious beliefs and screw circumcision as a whole.

[maquisard]

16. Careful what you say

Another poster got blocked for making the same observation. Apparently there are many even here on DU who consider genital mutilation to be defensible.

[eggplant]

23. Equating circumcision to genital mutilation is disingenuous.

Genital mutilation is tearing off a young girl's clitoris with a sharpened rock so that she won't be able to have any sexual pleasure later in life.

Circumcision is a safe medical procedure done under strict medical guidelines, under anesthetic. It has been shown to reduce incidents of medical issues later in life. It is performed for both religious and non-relgious reasons. It does not prevent sexual function.

To equate these two things is disingenuous.

[maquisard]

28. You are entitled to your opinion, of course

Many people, however, do consider circumcision to be a form of genital mutilation, as it is an elective surgical procedure which permanently and irreversibly disfigures genital anatomy. I don't believe that anyone has stated that infibulation in women is exactly the same as infibulation in men, but both procedures are nonetheless infibulation and many believe - and, like you, they are entitled to their opinion - that infibulation of any sort constitutes a form of mutilation. There is absolutely nothing disingenuous about having an opinion that finds the practice offensive, it merely differs from your own.

[eggplant]

34. Well, I'm so glad that you believe that I'm entitled to my offensive opinion.

Those who believe that it is mutilation are free to not have it performed on their children. And those who believe that it is a safe and legal medical procedure should be allowed to not have to be told that it is an offensive practice, disgusting, performed by deviants, and so on.

But hey, knock yourself out. Use all sorts of derogatory language in your pursuit of free speech and call it the high road.

[maquisard]

57. Perhaps you should extend to others the same courtesy...

... that you so self-righteously assume should be extended to yourself.

I believe the First Amendment entitles us in this country to not only find practices offensive, but to express our opinion that we find them offensive as well. It is lawful to perform circumcisions and, apparently, to lick blood off of the circumcised penis. That does not, however, give you the right to suppress the opinions of others who find it offensive.

[eggplant]

61. You are falsely accusing me.

I have stated that I agree that I would not consent to having a circ done with this technique.

The OP was about the technical details of one step of the procedure, and that parents have a right to be warned about it. And I completely agree with this.

But I have also chosen to stamp up to the barrage of thread-jacking attempts to equate circumcision to "mutilation". And for this I have been shouted down by anti-circ folks who paint the entire procedure as some sort of travesty using quite a broad brush because of this one detail. People who describe the practice of circ in general as sick, antiquated, valueless, indefensible, disgusting, somehow relating to pedophilia, victimizing, psychicly damaging, ...

So you tell me. Am I the one being discourteous? Have I disparaged anyone here? Are any of my posts alert-worthy? Because from where I sit, there has been nothing but a dog pile against me. I think I do have a right to call out thread jacking. And I think I've been a hell of a lot more courteous than most of the people I am replying to.

(Of course, I don't want to use a broad brush here -- there have certainly been some people who have disagreed with me while remaining civil, and I thank them for it.)

[maquisard]

68. Falsely accusing you of what?

I believe that I have suggested that people are entitled to have opinions that differ from yours. I'm not sure I see an accusation in that. As for whether you're being discourteous, I will leave it to you to decide whether describing other posters' comments as dog shit is courteous.

[eggplant]

73. Wait, what?

A "dog pile" means everyone jumping all over me. It's not about feces. As for the discourteousness, you wrote:

"there are many even here on DU who consider genital mutilation to be defensible."

I see this as a fairly direct attack on my belief that circs are perfectly reasonable choices that parents make. You equate circs with mutilation, and by extension you imply that my acceptance of circs means I believe it is ok to mutilate children. Pretty much all of your conversation has stemmed from there.

I have clearly and I believe effectively made the argument that "mutilation" is an inappropriate description of the circ procedure. You don't have to agree with it, but you should at least respect that it is a defensible position. I have avoided using inflammatory phrases, I have avoided trashing anyone's religious rights, I have avoided even suggesting that circs should be anything more than *an option* that parents can make, and should be able to do so without having to defend it, and without having their choice publicly denigrated by those who disagree with it.

Finally, I believe that I have also made the valid point that discussing the overall correctness of circumcision is a total thread-jacking here.

[maquisard]

77. Oooh, sorry, you're right, I misread that

As for the term mutilation being an attack on you, well, I see where you're coming from, but I don't see any way around the problem. For many of us, infibulation, whether it be performed upon males or upon females, conforms to the dictionary definition of "mutilation," i.e., "to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts." If you perceive an attack upon yourself for defending a practice that fits the definition of mutilation, maybe you can take it up with Webster. Other than that, I don't know what to tell you.

[eggplant]

81. I appreciate this post.

Thank you for apologizing, and yes, I think we are all just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't see a lot of constructive discussion happening from this point.

I think we've all said our peace. I've tried to be civil throughout the conversation. I'm going to walk away from it.

[TheMadMonk]

86. Taliban doesn't believe in vaccination.

Shall we allow them to keep cutting off kid's arms?

[happyslug]

92. Charles Darwin did NOT believe in Vaccinations either.

And what does EITHER have to do with this thread?

Charles Darwin position was such vaccinations would permit the "less fit" to survive, but again that has NOTHING to do with this thread.

[TheMadMonk]

85. Except where it's done with a sharpened seashell;

Or in a mass ceremony with a knife that's not properly sterilised between cuts.

Or by a Hep-C/herpes/HPV positive mohel.

Or in a hospital rife with necrotising fasciitis.

It's rare, but there are men out there who (because of a botched circumcision) will never know sexual pleasure, and who will only ever have children with the help of a turkey baster and a finger shoved up their back passage.


Medical issued which can be totally avoided with a good wash, approrpriate prophylaxis and not selecting casual sex partners on the basis of price or the recomendations of 1/2 a dozen mates who have been there before.

STDs may be taken home to the bedroom, but all too many are picked up in knee tremblers (AKA tupenny uprights) up against a back alley garbage skip.

In case you are unaware, the popularity of non-religious circumcision (including FGM in the second half of the 1800's) in America is almost entirely down to the promotion of the idea that it discouraged masturbation. ie. SEXUAL PLEASURE LATER IN LIFE.

It's mutilation! The sole difference lies in degree not kind.

[defacto7]

24. That was another jury bad call...

happens all the time. But this one was just plain bad considering the usual DU conversations that are allowed.

[riderinthestorm]

54. The juries are a popularity contest - if you're popular you can say shit. If not, you get hidden. nt

[TheMadMonk]

87. I think it was the use of the word "dick" confrontationally.

But still a bad call given what's all too often given a free pass here.

[Trascoli]

89. Innocent babies...

Be careful what you say, the right can use that against you.

[pennylane100]

5. That sounds like a truly disgusting ritual

I wonder how long it would be tolerated if it were Not a mainstream religion. Why is it OK to endanger a child if the parents give their consent. Although the risks seem small, the fact that there is a risk and it is taken solely for religious purposes should seem like reason enough to ban it completely.

Thank goodness it is not a catholic one, the mind boggles at the thought of all those pedophiles doing this to babies.

[eggplant]

6. Wow. Now mohels are pedophiles?

This is a simple and very NON-SEXUAL procedure. All that is at issue is whether mohels are allowed to do it the old-fashioned way (prior to understanding the health issues) or not. And the ruling says that yes you can, but you have to let the parents know that there is a risk involved. If the parents don't want that, then you simply use a tube so that there is no direct contact.

Modern CPR kits that hang on the wall in public places not contain a simple mask so that the person providing breath to the patient is protected -- if you don't use one, does that make you some kind of pervert? No, it just means that you don't understand the risks involved.

You seriously need to get over your religious bigotry.

[go west young man]

9. Religious bigotry?

It's an innocent child who is the victim. They are born into the world with no religion attached to their psyche. Their psyche is then damaged by this ridiculous ritual. It's time to quit defending this sick old ritual and move into the 21st century. Screw their religious beliefs no matter what the religion when it comes to genital mutilation.

[eggplant]

14. Their psyche is damaged?

Um, how exactly?

And to call a simple medical procedure that removes a piece of skin "genital mutilation" really makes it hard to have a productive conversation about this topic. Many non-religious parents have this done in the hospital by an MD. There is tangible evidence that it has an impact on reducing disease later in life.

But if you want to consider it religious genital mutilation as if it was comparable to a young girl getting a clitoridectomy with a sharpened rock without any anesthetic so as to keep her from experiencing sexual pleasure, then I guess this thread won't really be going anywhere.

[defacto7]

25. "There is tangible evidence" ????

You had better produce it if you are going to make such blanket statements that are well refuted, and refuted on this site with much documentation.

As far as your repeated analogies to female mutilation, what are you talking about? Try a different post where that is relevant. This has nothing to do with the subject.

[eggplant]

27. Boy, google is so hard to operate.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation/index.html

AAP: Health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks

Revising its policy on circumcision for the first time in 13 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics now says that the preventative health benefits of infant circumcision clearly outweigh the risks.

...

Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin, a small flap of skin that covers the tip of the penis, generally performed in the days after birth. Many Jews and Muslims circumcise their sons because of their religious beliefs. Other parents choose to snip for hygiene reasons, believing it's easier to keep a circumcised penis clean, or cosmetic ones, wanting junior to "look like dad."

...

However, an AAP task force formed in 2007 examined scientific studies conducted between 1995 through 2010 to evaluate if a revision was needed. The new, stronger language is a result of emerging evidence that found links between circumcision and decreased risk of urinary tract infections, some kinds of cancer, HPV, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases.

...

"The evidence was becoming clearer, and it's now obvious there's a preventative effect," says Dr. Michael Brady, chairman of the department of pediatrics at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and a member of the AAP task force.

[defacto7]

37. That is one US study.

I saw that study months ago. Many other studies refute it especially European studies. You like to Google... go for it. I'm not getting into old territory that is over repeated on this site and diverts from the OP. Have a nice day and your concern is noted.

[eggplant]

40. You asked for tangible evidence, I gave you tangible evidence.

Feel free to change the subject now that I have refuted your argument. Your debating tactics are really quite poor.

[TheMadMonk]

90. You quoted one article which is refuted by many others.

But even if true, the medical issues can be wholly avoided with good genital hygeine and safe sexual practices.

BTW. Are you aware that at least some of the numbers for that study come from parts of Africa where HIV is rife, and women use alum to dry and tighten their vaginas in order to enhance the male sexual experience? A practice which massively increases the chances of disease transmission.

[eggplant]

31. FGM *is* mutilation.

It is done solely to repress women. It has zero medical purpose. It is an agonizing procedure. It causes permanent psychological as well as physical damage. Thus it qualifies as "mutilation".

Circumcision is a medical procedure. It has very specific medical purposes. It is done safely, with care given to minimize stress to the child. It does not qualify as "mutilation".

[defacto7]

35. ... but nothing to do with the OP.

[eggplant]

39. My comparison has nothing to do with the OP.

It never has. It has consistently been in response to comments made by people other than the OP calling circumcision "genital mutilation". It is a term used to shut down rational discussion of the merits of a medical procedure. A procedure that has been shown to have specific medical benefits, according to studies by the AAP.

My discussion of FGM has consistently been to demonstrate that the term "mutilation" is inapproprate in the context of circumcision. In this context, the term is being used to shut down rational discussion of an otherwise safe and legal medical procedure. Its intent is to inflame the discussion, and to cast aspersions on those who disagree with your viewpoint.

[McCamy Taylor]

45. Circumcision is a cosmetic procedure. So baby's wee wee looks like daddy's wee wee.

I say this as a family doctor who has participated in a lot of family discussions of "Are we going to circumcise or not?"

I guess if folks want to pay for it themselves they can. But insurance should not cover it. And children should be allowed to sue the doctor who performed it without their consent when they turn 18. That would put an end to it for good.

[eggplant]

51. The consent thing is a canard.

Consent was given by the parents. Or are you suggesting that doctors and mohels are running around performing circs without the parents' consent? Kids don't get to sue for any other medical procedure that their parents consent to when they turn 18. Why would a circ be special here?

[riderinthestorm]

55. Because its a cosmetic procedure.

And men should be able to make the decision to alter their genitalia when they are adults, not have their parents doing such a procedure that can have real and permanent consequences.

[eggplant]

58. Parents make all sorts of decisions that have real and permanent consequences for their kids.

You don't think the procedure has value, so fine, don't have your kids circed. I do think it has value. I had mine circed. I feel no need to justify my decision to anyone. I don't feel that you need to justify your decision either.

Men and women have to live with their parents' choices. So do the parents. That's the way it is.

[riderinthestorm]

66. I'm sorry but elective cosmetic procedures performed on infants

that completely alters their genitalia is in a far different category than virtually all of the other medical decisions that a parent has to make for their child.

This is one procedure that doesn't need to happen to an infant. It can and should be made by a grown person capable of understanding what they are doing - either as a religious marker or for health consequences. If this were parents deciding to cut a daughter's clitoris we'd be outraged. Those parents that do this believe it has "value". They believe its mandated by their religion, their culture, and for the health of the girl.

If cutting the genitalia is wrong for girls, its wrong for boys.

Those decisions should properly wait til they are adults and can decide for themselves.

[eggplant]

69. Once again...

The comparison between female clitoridectomy and male circumcision is disingenouous. The proper comparison would be with *removing* the child's penis. Not a piece of skin on the end.

And many parents do this for entirely NON-RELIGIOUS reasons. So stop with that canard.

Enough thread-jacking already. The OP isn't about the merits of circumcision. Take it somewhere else.

[riderinthestorm]

74. Discussions on DU are usually wide ranging, frequently OT, + you don't get to be the thread director

as much as you may want to be.

I'm talking about ANY alteration to the genitals of infants should be banned. Period. It can wait until that person is fully grown and can make their own decisions about it. I'm not arguing severity or comparisons. I mean ANY cosmetic procedures to a human baby should wait until they are grown. I include piercings, tattoos, and any other procedure that's not a medical necessity for the child.

[eggplant]

80. Yes, I now what you are talking about.

And it is thread hijacking, whether you choose to justify it or not. And even though threads are often jacked, it doesn't mean it is within the rules.

Look, at this point, we've all said our peace. I've tried to be civil throughout the conversation. I'm going to walk away from it.

[SugarShack]

113. Is it necessary to suck the penis to get the blood?? Did you read this?

[riderinthestorm]

114. Oh yes. Its just more horrific added onto more horrific for me. Agreed. nt

[go west young man]

60. Eh, in my world pain causes psychological damage.

Glad you so righteously know how those infants feel at the time. As far as your tangible evidence goes, if one third of the world is circumcised then two thirds are not. That negates your point about the so called benefits. Are those two thirds less well off or getting less pleasure from their foreskin? The numbers outweigh your so called "evidence". Research the history of circumcision and see that it's always been associated with religious ritual and that when it was brought to the US it was pushed/lobbied into the medical profession by Jewish doctors. It it in no way a necessary procedure anymore. Research the Gomco/Yellen clamp to clarify this if you want to dig deeper.

Underneath it all the whole circumcision thing is just religion trying to hang on when it's well past it's sell by date. It's also a money maker unfortunately for those innocent newborns.

[eggplant]

65. Children are subjected to many procedures that are painful.

Parents weigh the cost against the benefit. The idea that you know better than me what is best for my kid is pretty offensive on its face.

You can argue whether you personally believe that circs have value. I believe they do. You believe they don't. But it doesn't change the fact that this question is a complete thread-jacking of the OP. So don't try to paint this hate-fest against me any other way.

[Scootaloo]

105. It's an issue of consent and body autonomy

An infant cannot consent to having a piece of their body removed. It should thus not be removed. Not difficult to understand, right? leave it to the individual's own decision.

No it is not as physically harsh as a clitorodectomy, but that's a cop-out argument on your part; neither operation should be performed. Both are violations of a person's bodily autonomy.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

12. I'm not ok with it either.

Grown men putting their mouths on infant genitalia is never ok, I don't care what religious fairytale they use to justify it. Its sick and wrong.

[eggplant]

15. You completely mischaracterize this.

The purpose of this step is to clear the incision of excess blood, to help with healing. In the olden days, this was done simply by using one's mouth. In our modern age, we have more sterile methods, but the purpose is the same.

Stop equating a medical procedure with some sort of sexual deviancy.

[maquisard]

18. Have you read the article?

It's the article that describes the procedure as "...perform circumcisions and use their mouths to draw away blood from the wound on a baby's penis..." The poster did no more than restate what the article said, so how is that a "mischaracterization"? Or are you contending that the article got it wrong? But then, you yourself just described the procedure as being the same as the article stated, so where's the "mischaracterization"?

[eggplant]

20. Right here.

"Grown men putting their mouths on infant genitalia is never ok, I don't care what religious fairytale they use to justify it. Its sick and wrong."

The implication of *this* statement (not the statement in the article) is that there is an intentional perversion involved. There isn't. This is something that takes *literally* one or two seconds. It isn't sick. It is a practical solution to a procedural step typically done in a home environment that doesn't require complex equipment.

This is like saying that when a doctor gives you a man a prostate exam by sticking their finger up your ass, that it is sick and wrong. Or when an OB/GYN cranks a woman's vagina open with a speculum, that it is sick and wrong. Intent is the important thing here, and the blanket statement that I quoted is a clear mischaracterization of the intent.

[maquisard]

32. So what you're saying is that you object to the poster's moral judgment

According to you and the article, the poster's "characterization" of "grown men putting their mouths on infant genitalia" is, in fact, entirely accurate. You disagree that doing so "is never okay" and is "sick and wrong," but those are opinions, not characterizations. The poster has not "mischaracterized" anything, s/he simply has a different opinion of it than you do.

[eggplant]

36. No, they don't simply have a different opinion than me.

They are making derogatory statements about the intent of a simple procedure, and by inference, making derogatory statements about the practice as a whole.

Their mischaracterization comes from their disgust over their perception of the intent, which is factually wrong.

The proper equivalency is to say that having someone stick their finger up your ass is "sick and wrong" during a discussion about the medical procedure known as a prostate examination. Many people believe that this same activity in the context of a sexual act is wrong, and that's their choice, but it mischaracterizes the intent inherent in the discussion.

[maquisard]

62. Actually, that would be a false equivalency

A prostate exam is not a surgical procedure, it removes no tissue, it results in no permanent change to the patient's anatomy, it is conducted with the adult patient's informed consent, for the purpose of detecting potentially life-threatening medical problems. None of those things can be said for infibulation. For someone so eager to point out what you perceive to be false equivalencies from other posters, you might consider exercising greater caution in the comparisons you draw.

I also think you're making presumptions about the poster's stated meaning by reading into his/her statement a perception of intent which may or may not be accurate. It is possible to find infibulation distasteful without perceiving a perverse intent upon the part of the person performing the procedure.

[go west young man]

64. Great analogy!

The difference being a prostate exam is required to save your life and the priest sucking on the infants bloody cut foreskin is not.

[eggplant]

67. A prostate exam is in no way required to save your life.

And your "priest sucking on the infants bloody cut foreskin" is just an inflammotory strawman comment that nobody here has disagreed with. Certainly I wouldn't consent to having it done on my son.

But the ongoing thread-jacking here is pretty transparent. Take your anti-circ fight somewhere else.

[ZombieHorde]

88. I agree with you that intent is import, however

the doctors wear gloves in those cases, and any equipment used is sterilized.

Babies have been getting herpes from this mouth procedure. I wouldn't let anyone put their mouth on my child's wound, except for the child that has the wound. That is just common sense in our present day. Letting a man suck on your child's wound isn't very smart.

[Agschmid]

98. +1

and phew...

[smirkymonkey]

109. That part of it was news to me. Ew..just Ew.

[pennylane100]

19. Yes, it is so far fetched to imagine that there perverts posing as religious leaders.

The millions paid out by various churches to victimized children and the jail sentences that sent many of these religious pedophiles to prison must be only in the imagination of my religiously bigoted mind?????

It is also par for the course that those who defend such disgusting practices so quickly resort to name calling to defend these customs. . I think that it is unnecessary for a person performing a circumcision to suck the blood from the baby's penis so of course I must be bigoted. Let us disregard that this a dangerous practice and puts the child's life at risk, let's just resort to name

[eggplant]

22. Wow.

This is a one-time procedure that takes at most a few seconds, and is simply a step in the procedure, like applying a topical anesthetic to the kid's penis. OMG! He's feeling the kid up!

The dangerous practice is in the specific METHOD in use here -- that is, not using a sterile tube to avoid direct contact -- and that a parent should understand the medical risk involved. That's it.

To equate this tiny step in a medical procedure to "victimized children" sexually abused by religious officials is completely disingenuous. To call this procedure a "disgusting practice" even when there are MANY non-religious parents who have this very same procedure performed in the hospital by an MD for entirely health-related reasons shows a basic bigotry to this as a "religious practice".

Get over it. Medical procedures are messy. That doesn't make them disgusting practices performed by religious pedophiles.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

43. These people aren't trained medical professionals.

And I wont get over it, its abuse.

New York City is investigating the death last September of a baby who contracted herpes after a "ritual circumcision with oral suction," in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish ceremony known in Hebrew as metzitzah b'peh.

In a practice that takes place during a ceremony known as the bris, a circumcision practitioner, or mohel, removes the foreskin from the baby's penis, and with his mouth sucks the blood from the incision to cleanse the wound.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618

[eggplant]

47. Yes, they are trained professionals.

http://rabbi4u.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=51

Q: My patient is Jewish. Why recommend a Mohel -- ritual circumcisor -- over a qualified M.D.?

A: Since there are various religious requirements that go along with a bris, only a person well versed in Jewish laws and customs should undertake the job of performing a bris. Although a doctor may be Jewish and experienced in doing circumcisions, this does not automatically make him or her a Mohel. Note that the Code of Jewish Law (Shulchan Aruch) devotes seven entire chapters to the intricate legalities of a bris. A qualified Mohel's training not only covers the medical technique of circumcision; it also includes the religious legal training.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

83. Again.

They are NOT trained medical professionals and you're link proved that. Religious legal training means nothing, nada, zip.

ITS CHILD ABUSE!

[Crunchy Frog]

99. An adult suckin on a child's genitals?

Anyone else who did that would be thrown in the slammer.

Yes, I do think that an adult sucking on a child's genitals falls under the general definition of pedophily. I feel the same way about Catholic priests and members of any other religion.

[ZombieHorde]

7. What kind of parent would expose their infant son's wounded penis

to a man's mouth? It is such an obviously bad idea.

"Congrats son, you now have an incurable, contagious disease"

[eggplant]

10. One who wasn't aware of the details of the procedure and hires a mohel who uses this technique.

Thus this new regulation requiring informed consent. In many places, there are a very limited number of mohels available, so it isn't like you can really shop around. Where we live, there was essentially only one. Luckily for us, he used the sanitary tube. He was very careful, hygenic, and quick. Even so, I would have appreciated this sort of regulation so that I was better informed about the procedural risks.

[ZombieHorde]

13. That makes much more sense to the likes of me. nt

[LiberalFighter]

8. I see this post as copyright violation.

The number of paragraphs needs to be reduced.

[McCamy Taylor]

48. There is a pretty good discussion of the pros and

cons of an elective medical procedure going on here. Maybe the mods can shorten the OP without shutting down the thread. Because I am sure that LiberalFighter would not want to shut down the thread.

[LiberalFighter]

63. I don't want to shut it down

but copyright requirements need to be met. Period

[SugarShack]

72. You don't have to, I fixed it so it complies

[LiberalFighter]

82. Much better! Thanks

[OKNancy]

17. Hello - LBN host here: you need to supply a link and also more importantly

you need to snip the article to comply with copyright rules.

Four paragraphs only. I'll have to lock it up soon so hopefully you will see this.

[SugarShack]

107. It's been done, a direct link is there and copyright issues addressed

[obama2terms]

26. That's sick

My family is Jewish ( I'm atheist) and my brother was circumcised and so were all of my boy cousins and the guy didn't do that. Also, the rabbi at my family's synogogue ( spelling?) had his son circumcised, they're orthodox, and came here from NY and they didn't do that either. My entire family is Jewish, and this is a sick ritual that I have never heard of so PLEASE DON'T THINK THIS IS A COMMON THING IN JUDAISM!! Because it's not. Just had to get that off my chest.

[dorkulon]

29. At least Catholics have the good sense to do it when nobody's looking.

[defacto7]

30. Sexual deviance or not...

It's an antiquated, unnecessary, ignorant, possibly dangerous, religious practice...

Time to get out of the 5th century BCE.

[eggplant]

38. Well, the American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with you.

Are you accusing *them* of being stuck in the 5th century? Are you saying that their extensive study is antiquated, ignorant, dangerous, and purely religiously motivated?

[McCamy Taylor]

44. Yes, it is politically motivated. For quite a while, the Peds said "No" to circumcision.

They backed off because so many dads insist that their little boy's penis look like theirs. Circumcision is ghastly---they tried to teach me how to do them when I was a resident. I did one---yes, one---then refused to do any more. I still remember that little baby boy screaming.

[eggplant]

52. Are you suggesting that the studies are wrong?

I don't have any problem with you choosing not to perform them. Nobody is suggesting that you should. I imagine that there are other surgical procedures that you aren't comfortable performing. That doesn't mean that there aren't qualified medical personnel that are capable of performing this procedure safely and effectively, nor does your one experience imply that the procedure has no value.

Personally, I have a problem with heel sticks. I don't see the value as being worth the cost. But that's just me, and I'm comfortable letting parents make that decision.

[dhol82]

59. not just to make it look like daddy's

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/12/01/circumcision-is-africas-best-weapon-against-aids/


Circumcision is Africa’s best weapon against AIDS

[Crunchy Frog]

102. And European doctors disagree with the American Academy of Pediatrics.

http://www.intactamerica.org/german_pediatrics_statement

[OswegoAtheist]

41. This seems like a very low-demand problem.

I'm not sure that this law will do anything but make parents sign an extra piece of paper. Given the religious nature of the ceremony, and its relative importance to the parents, somehow I doubt that a slight risk of infection- even one which could prove fatal- will be the tipping point where someone will say, "well, that changed my mind!" I see this law having negligible impact, if any. The people to whom this law applies aren't likely to have their minds changed by the consent form.

Oswego "Mohel, mo' problems" Atheist

[ButterflyBlood]

49. Yeah this form of circumcision just needs to be banned outright nt

[Sgent]

76. This ritual is not normative

in Judaism -- only a small minority of Orthodox Jews have this particular ritual (with the mouth sucking the blood). Unfortunately, there is more than one case where a family hired a mohel, not knowing about the particular mohel's use of this barbaric ritual.

Me personally, any of my son's will be circumcised by a mohel who is also an physician (or PA, NP). If one of these ultra orthodox mohels had don this to my son, there would have been a hospital visit for them.

[McCamy Taylor]

42. Applying the human mouth to any open wound is a bad idea.

The human mouth is full of germs. Maybe in the middle ages this was the standard of medical care. But leeches stopped being used centuries ago.

[eggplant]

53. I agree.

And I wouldn't consent to a circ performed this way.

[McCamy Taylor]

46. For those who say circumcism prevents disease....prophylactic mastectomy of all women would prevent

most breast cancer. But is the emotional cost worth it?

[eggplant]

56. This is a false equivalency.

You are suggesting that a radical procedure is comparable to a cosmetic one. Mastectomy has much greater risk, and many more negative effects, even when performed successfully.

And I know some women who have had it done because their personal risk factors were sufficiently high that it outweighed the emotional cost.

Nobody is suggestion that circs become manditory. This is a strawman argument. By the same token, prophylactic castration would prevent all hereditary disease.

[Crunchy Frog]

101. It actually wouldn't be very radical if performed on a newborn.

Quick snip of the breast buds. No more radical than a circumcision, and a massive reduction in future cancer cases.

[libdem4life]

50. Imagine if the female "circumcism" was performed "medically" and sanctified by the Rabbi's

"oral suction". That's sexual gore/porn/pedo acts regardless of gender.

In addition, the basic (and only) justification of male circumsion is that male's caregivers, and males themselves at older ages, are incapable of genital hygiene. That's it. And apparently, females are better equipped or have better hygiene?

Other than that, yes for either gender, it is genital mutilation.

[aquart]

70. And the false equivalence continues unabated in all its breathtaking bigotry.

[libdem4life]

75. How are both gender genitals false equivalency? And breathtaking bigotry...please, proceed???

I believe that men are equally capable of hygiene as are women. That is bigotry, yea breathtaking?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

84. Its not a false equivalency.

It was a good point. Child abuse is child abuse. I don't care if its a Rabbi, Priest, Minister, or whatever. In the year 2013 religious rituals should not exist where grown men put their mouths in infant genitals.

[libdem4life]

91. And it matters not which gender is experiencing the religious mouth or the knife...I think we are in

agreement.

[Crunchy Frog]

103. Breathtaking bigotry against men and their sexual anatomy.

[SugarShack]

71. Thanks for keeping this kicked! I had a notice it did not comply with rules and link

but I fixed it all, and it now complies.

[ReRe]

78. I wish I had realized....

...that this was not really a necessary procedure and refused circumcision for my son. I will never forget being in the hospital. My first child. Hearing a baby whaling from the nursery. I walked to the Nursery window and sure enough my baby boy was gone from his cradle. All of a sudden the baby stopped crying. And out walked the Doctor. Then I knew what had happened. I had recognized my new baby son's cry of terror.

[libdem4life]

93. Yes, the only points family and doctor could make for my infant son was it's basic procedure

and everybody else does it. They did mention the hygiene thing which I soundly informed him that I and my son's father could adequately teach him how to clean himself so that when he was older ilt would continue. I was most unpopular.

[ReRe]

95. You did the right thing...

...I was so young (21 actually) and didn't know how to say NO yet, and stand up for myself or my new baby son. Oh, if we could go back and do it all over...

[libdem4life]

79. There is no logical modern parsing of this issue of ritual male bloodletting other than hygiene.

Except, it has also been defended by arguments such as that prehistorical cultures considered the female ability of naturally bleeding/cessation of bleeding as the mysterious source of life. The discovery of the concept of paternity led to patriarchy...and circumcism...and religion.

[SugarShack]

94. The disgusting oral aspect of this, is just well crazy!

[libdem4life]

97. After all my research about my son, I never ran into this potentiality.

[ButterflyBlood]

96. Every single parent who consents to this needs their kids taken away. Period.

Child Protective Services in NYC needs to crack down and put an end to these disgusting Hasidic cults. The state also needs to quit subsidizing them, considering how reliant they are on subsidies since their lifestyle isn't very economically viable. The whole movement is revolting.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

100. Oy!

[graham4anything]

104. The article is about 2 methods. NOWHERE is this about not doing one, just the method involved.

PLEASE NOTE-the above article anyhow does NOT say it wants to ban the circumcision as a whole. It wants to alert the parents about the very little chance of side effect of one method over a second, and to do a different technique

Either way, the circumcision will occur, and it is with parents knowledge.

but it reminds me

Wait for consent til a child is an adult?
There are people that believe quacks like Wakefield and won't vaccinate.
By then they will be dead, because they did not get a vaccination that can save ones life
believing a quack like Wakefield who lied so often, the mantra took hold and people stopped gettting shots (much like this year so many have not gotten flu shots.)

It has allowed horrible childhood diseases to come back that were completely eradicated because of a stupid mantra oft repeated by the quackWakefieldquack.

This is a proven thing that increases safety in adulthood, and is recomended for all, same as the gardasil vaccine should be made manditory for all (including boys), and so should the pnemonia shot as so many who had the flu or a bad cold develop bacterial pnemonia and
that is directly stopped prehand from happening in a great percentage of times by the vaccine.

I assume some would say that giving a child a shot without their adult consent would also be
some sort of abuse as the child gave no consent.
A parent has the right to give consent on a child.

As the Jewish religion to a Jewish person (whcih is what the Original article is) has a known routine after the birth of a child, parental permission is indeed given, as the Rabbi, or Jewish
leader comes into the room at the invitation of the family and it is talked about beforehand.


PLEASE NOTE-the above article anyhow does NOT say it wants to ban the circumcision as a whole. It wants to alert the parents about the very little chance of side effect, and do a different technique.
It says NOTHING about doing away with the circumcision itself.

So its just the method being discussed.

In reality, any other talk about this is off topic of the original article and in all cases, in the Jewish religion, the religius leader comes into the room at the express invitation of the parents.
(after all, how would they know the person is Jewish to start off with, unless they are asked
to by the parent(s)???

Especially in New York City, which is the singular most diverse city in the world and no hospital
that is solely one religion over another.

(note for openess and talking about the thread, I am Jewish with child and know this above in a hospital, as a fact, it is NOT done secretly, the parents are indeed involved.

This is solely a medical issue on which technique, not a do it/ don't do it altogether argument.

[SugarShack]

106. They clearly don't want to follow up on this. Lots of noise on marijuana in NY now....

[closeupready]

108. Her body, her choice - his body, his choice.

[ButterflyBlood]

110. If I were DA in NY EVER SINGLE mohel who's ever done this would get child molestation charges filed

And there's go to be things that can be charged against any parent that consents to this disgusting thing or any rabbi that encourages it. These fundie fucks should up and be happy this is all that's happening.

[SWTORFanatic]

111. IMHO cut cocks are far better, but I don't see the need to do this on children

without their consent.

[SugarShack]

112. Well many do it to children, but THIS oral process is like a blood ritual