Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

I don't care how anyone sugarcoats it-- this is ritualized child molestation.

Posted by   + Show Post

New York (CNN) -- Two more infants have contracted the herpes virus after undergoing an ultra-Orthodox Jewish type of circumcision, which has been linked to the spread of the potentially deadly virus to newborn boys, according to the New York City Health Department.

In the ritual, known as metzitzah b'peh, after removing the foreskin of the penis the person performing the procedure places his mouth briefly over the wound, sucking a small amount of blood out, which is discarded. Antibacterial ointment is applied and the wound is bandaged. The health department says the procedure is dangerous because the contact with the mouth could transmit diseases such as herpes.

Most adults are infected with the herpes simplex virus type 1, and while they may have no symptoms, the virus may be present in their saliva, according to the health department. (It is different from herpes simplex virus type 2, which is usually transmitted sexually.)

"While HSV-1 in adults can cause the common cold sore, HSV-1 infection in newborns is very serious," a department statement says.

2012: Circumcision rite needs consent

Since 2000, there have been 13 reports in New York City of infants contracting HSV-1, two of whom died from the virus. The health department reported that an estimated 20,493 infants in New York City were exposed to the practice in that period.

In the most recent case, the infant developed a fever seven days after circumcision and vesicular lesions the following day, according to a press release from the city health department. Seventy percent of neonatal herpes cases show lesions and only 40% produce a fever.

The DOH passed a regulation in September requiring all those who perform the ritual to get parental consent on a form stating that the procedure can lead to health risks. Several Jewish groups and three rabbis filed a lawsuit in federal District Court in Manhattan arguing that "the government cannot compel the transmission of messages that the speaker does not want to express -- especially when the speaker is operating in an area of heightened First Amendment protection, such as a religious ritual."

Dr. Thomas A. Farley, commissioner of the city's health department, claimed the consent requirement was "lawful, appropriate and necessary" in a September press release. "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.

Baby boys whose circumcisions likely involved the ritual between April 2006 and December 2011 had an estimated risk of contracting neonatal HSV-1 infection of 24.4 per 100,000 cases, 3.4 times greater than other infants, according to the health department.

"There is no safe way to perform oral suction on any open wound in a newborn," Farley said.

While Jews regularly practice circumcision as part of their religion, metzitzah b'peh is limited to a relatively small number of ultra-Orthodox Jews.

by on Apr. 22, 2013 at 3:19 PM
Replies (91-95):
LilliesValley
by Bronze Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 10:51 AM
I would agree using a pipette would be best but in the absence of doing that then having some testing procedures and process is better than nothing. Hopefully to stop more boys from getting sick.


Quoting lancet98:

 


A very large percentage of people carry herpes, and if they get tested every six months, there are still many months during which they can transmit illness.


My preference would be that they do what the other Jewish groups do - use a pipette.  




Quoting LilliesValley:

I don't agree with it and question the religious principles and practice here. But couldn't these rabbis if they want to continue to do this just get tested twice a year? I mean if this is ultra important for religious practices because you want the best interests for the child then have the complete best interests for the child. Get tested and then approved rabbis can do this. Again I don't agree with it but if it's going to continue either way then everyone needs to be responsible about it.



 


Traci_Momof2
by Silver Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 4:53 PM

 


Quoting teri4lance:

 

 

Quoting Traci_Momof2:

 

 

Quoting teri4lance:

Sorry. I don't find this sexual in nature in any way.
It's clear however, that there are some serious health concerns associated with their method. I'm not sure the best solution because religious freedom is a very important right in this country and should not just be thrown over every time people see a scary statistic in a news story. I would hope that the local health dept can come together with that community and come up with a solution that will stop the transmission of disease.

 

 Religious freedom ends where the health and well-being of children begins.  Performs whatever religious practices you like.  But as soon as it infringes on the health and well-being of children, you're done.  Do it when they are adults and can choose it for themselves.  Don't force something dangerous on children though.  Religion shouldn't have that much freedom.

And yes, this means that circumcision in it's entirety should NOT be protected under religious freedom and should NOT be performed on any healthy infant or child.  It infringes on the health and well-being of every single child that it is performed on.

No, I don't think it necessarily needs to be banned wholesale. I'm also not suggesting that nothing be done. I would think something more common sense like requiring health screenings (and associated banning only of those with diseases they can spread with this sort of contact) of the rabbi who are going to engage in this ritual would do as much to protect the children and it would not result in an infringement of a group's religious rights. If these children were not contracting any disease, I would have no issue with this practice on a legal standpoint. I personally think it's kind of icky. BUT, I don't get to choose how you express your religion. We do have a social responsibility to prevent the spread of disease, but I think there is more than 1 way to accomplish this, and I would prefer to find an effective way to do it that protects the rights of these fellow Americans. Let's not forget that these are your countrymen, and anything you are prepared to take away from them you should be prepared to have taken away from you. 

 

Notice I am not just talking about this specific form of circumcision.  I am talking about any circumcision.  I wish someone had taken that away from me.  I regret circumcising my boys because I had no right to take that away from THEM.

 

teri4lance
by Silver Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 9:26 PM



Quoting Traci_Momof2:



Quoting teri4lance:



Quoting Traci_Momof2:



Quoting teri4lance:

Sorry. I don't find this sexual in nature in any way.
It's clear however, that there are some serious health concerns associated with their method. I'm not sure the best solution because religious freedom is a very important right in this country and should not just be thrown over every time people see a scary statistic in a news story. I would hope that the local health dept can come together with that community and come up with a solution that will stop the transmission of disease.


 Religious freedom ends where the health and well-being of children begins.  Performs whatever religious practices you like.  But as soon as it infringes on the health and well-being of children, you're done.  Do it when they are adults and can choose it for themselves.  Don't force something dangerous on children though.  Religion shouldn't have that much freedom.

And yes, this means that circumcision in it's entirety should NOT be protected under religious freedom and should NOT be performed on any healthy infant or child.  It infringes on the health and well-being of every single child that it is performed on.

No, I don't think it necessarily needs to be banned wholesale. I'm also not suggesting that nothing be done. I would think something more common sense like requiring health screenings (and associated banning only of those with diseases they can spread with this sort of contact) of the rabbi who are going to engage in this ritual would do as much to protect the children and it would not result in an infringement of a group's religious rights. If these children were not contracting any disease, I would have no issue with this practice on a legal standpoint. I personally think it's kind of icky. BUT, I don't get to choose how you express your religion. We do have a social responsibility to prevent the spread of disease, but I think there is more than 1 way to accomplish this, and I would prefer to find an effective way to do it that protects the rights of these fellow Americans. Let's not forget that these are your countrymen, and anything you are prepared to take away from them you should be prepared to have taken away from you. 


Notice I am not just talking about this specific form of circumcision.  I am talking about any circumcision.  I wish someone had taken that away from me.  I regret circumcising my boys because I had no right to take that away from THEM.



I noticed. I elected not to address it because that is each set of parent's right to decide what they think is best for their sons. This isn't about what you or I think is the right way to do this. It's whether or not, or in what manner, this particular health issue is resolved fairly and effectively. I understand that it can be difficult at times to respect other people's freedoms when they seem so misalligned with your own. But, that is what this country was founded for. There are certain situations where the public well-being becomes more important than an individual's right to practice her own religion, and in those cases, I think it's of paramount importance to do it in a way that takes those rights seriously and solves the issue in a way that makes sense. 

Without ME there would be no awesome!

Euphoric
by Thumper kid spanks on Apr. 24, 2013 at 9:31 PM

 Sick

futureshock
by Ruby Member on Apr. 24, 2013 at 11:06 PM

This is one reason why I do not like organized religion. There is NO RATIONAL/LOGICAL reason to subject infants to such a risk.  It is disgusting.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured