Despite baby dying after getting herpes, Orthodox rabbis say they’ll defy law on ancient circumcision ritual

[웃 910]

Despite baby dying after getting herpes, Orthodox rabbis say they’ll defy law on ancient circumcision ritual

Two children are dead, more are injured — yet a group of ultra-Orthodox rabbis say they plan to defy a health order in the name of religious freedom.

Less than a year after a Brooklyn tot died following an ancient circumcision ritual, the rabbis say they will ignore a proposed law that would mandate parental-consent forms before performing the dangerous procedure.

Over the past decade, at least one other newborn died after contracting herpes from the rite, in which the rabbi draws blood from the ####### with his mouth.

But ultra-Orthodox leaders are lashing out at the city’s “evil plans” ahead of the Board of Health’s vote next week.

About 200 rabbis signed a proclamation claiming the Health Department “printed and spread lies . . . in order to justify their evil decree.”

“It is clear to us, that there is not even an iota of blame or danger in this ancient and holy custom,” the letter states.

Most modern mohels — men trained to perform religious circumcisions, who are usually rabbis or doctors — remove blood from the baby’s wound using a sterile pipette.

But some Orthodox Jewish parents insist on an ancient “suction by mouth” ritual called metzitzah b’peh.

The city’s law would require mohels to distribute consent waivers, detailing the herpes risk, before the ritual.

Rabbi David Niederman, executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg, said no one will comply with the law, even if it’s passed.

“For the government to force a rabbi who’s practicing a religious act to tell his congregants it’s dangerous is totally unacceptable,” Niederman told The Post.

“You’re forcing the mohel and the parent to sign a piece of paper that contradicts their religious convictions.”

Niederman said there’s no substantive evidence linking herpes and the religious ritual.

Michael Tobman, a political consultant working with several large Hasidic communities, said the waiver is no minimal imposition.

“It warns parents that the city suggests a link between the practice and serious health worries, [and] it would undoubtedly have a chilling impact,” he said.

“City government shouldn’t be doing that.”

At least 11 babies in the city have contracted the herpes simplex virus since 2000 — and two developed brain damage and two died, according to a Health Department investigation.

In July, an Orange County infant was hospitalized after contracting a deadly strain of the virus.

Earlier this year, prosecutors were investigating the September 2011 death of a Brooklyn newborn at Maimonides Hospital from Type 1 herpes.

A Health Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the rabbis’ proclamation but said, “It is important that parents know the risks associated with the practice.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/circumcisers_kiss_of_death_S20ek2gmCGjA5432IvveMI#ixzz25QdKqO5J

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Most Jews do not practice metzitzah b'peh. Modern Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews already disavow this practice, which entails direct contact between the mohel's mouth and the baby's circumcision wound, as unsanitary, unnecessary, and unacceptible.

However, most Haredi ("ultra-Orthodox") still vehemently defend it.

Obviously, metzizah b'peh should be disavowed and outlawed - there is no question that it violates all sorts of laws and medical ethics and is a serious health threat to babies.

But what is just as disturbing (if not more) is that the City of New York backed down for so long on outlawing this practice, and instead of immediately protecting children, turned the whole matter over to a rabbinical court. Now the City is proposing to allow parents to simply sign a consent waiver to have it done to their child.

[sandinista! 1,816]

http://www.matziv.com/pictures/drbermanarticlemetzitzah

Another perspective on the issue.

[Penguin_ie 5,994]

***** two posts removed for derogatory language. This is a sensitive subject, careful how you go *****

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

http://www.matziv.com/pictures/drbermanarticlemetzitzah

Another perspective on the issue.

Dr. Berman is well-known within the Jewish community in the debate over metzitzah b'peh, but his opinion has been characterized as "unconventional" and a "minority opinion." Note that Berman states (at the very end of the article):

I was zocheh to have a grandson more than one year ago. The Bris took place in the Yeshiva University Beis Midrash, where my oldest son, the father, is studying for Semichah. The Mohel was the one under attack by New York City; his son performed the MbP; and I was the Sandak.

So he has a personal connection to the mohel under investigation, and also participated in the ritual performed on his grandson.

More on Berman:

A dissenting, minority opinion is presented by Dr. Daniel S. Berman, an adult infectious diseases specialist who has published in the lay press on this topic. He has reviewed the above data, critiqued the authors of previous medical articles, and has questioned the validity and motivations of their medical opinions. He suggests anti-religious bias as a significant factor in their conclusions and in the actions of the New York City department of health. He doubts that MBP is the cause of infection and posits that herpes is more likely contracted from other sources, such as caretakers of the infant. He also argues that no absolute confirmation of a causal relationship in any of these cases has ever been proven. To prove causality would require DNA evidence linking the specific herpes strains and this has never been done. It must be noted, however, that to perform DNA analysis, community and mohel cooperation would, of course, be necessary and this has not been forthcoming.

I am unaware of other physicians who share the essence of Dr. Berman’s point of view. Nevertheless, my observation is that Dr. Berman’s opinion has been accepted by the overwhelming majority of the chassidish and yeshivish communities. “Nothing has been proven and MBP is absolutely safe” has become the mantra in this discussion. Furthermore, there has been no halachic call to modify MBP at this point except from the Rabbinical Council of America.

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/metzitzah-bpeh-where-we-are-and-where-we-need-to-go/2012/04/12/

The Jewish Press article also notes:

It is the opinion of many infectious disease specialists and public health authorities that the association between MBP and herpes is adequately established by these cases, considering the location of the herpes in the infant’s genital area, the timing of infection soon after the bris, the clusters of association with a given mohel and other epidemiological parameters. Furthermore, basic medical theory eschews oral contact with a wound, especially since our current medical knowledge does not attribute any benefit to MBP. The risk/benefit ratio is thus infinite. As such, these specialists recommend modifying MBP by either using a gauze or glass tube instead of direct oral contact. This was the solution approved by the Chasam Sofer and other rabbanim, and adopted by many Jewish communities, when faced with the same issue more than 150 years ago.

[Xanax 349]

As unsavory as I find this, isn't taking away their right to do this wrong?

Edit: Maybe they could just make it safer, use protective measures because either the baby or the Rabbi could have something that would be harmful to the other.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Xanax

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

As unsavory as I find this, isn't taking away their right to do this wrong?

Edit: Maybe they could just make it safer, use protective measures because either the baby or the Rabbi could have something that would be harmful to the other.

Yes, there are much safer, more protective ways to perform the ritual. The Jewish Press article I posted mentions some of them, and many in the Jewish community have practiced these modified procedures for more than a hundred years. It's only a small minority who persist in the direct oral contact procedure.

[james&olya 1,121]

As unsavory as I find this, isn't taking away their right to do this wrong?

The issue is the right of the baby to not be given a fatal disease!!!

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Post containing personal attack violating TOS has been removed along with several posts quoting it or referring to the removed post. You do not have to agree with the contents of a post but you don't have the right to attack the poster of those contents - address your comments to the contents only. I repeat Penguin's warning: This is a sensitive subject so please be careful in your responses.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Kathryn41