The state of New York's Health Department has just issued new guidelines on oral-suction circumcision -- a practice followed by Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox Jews. I suppose many of you out there, like myself, have no idea what an oral-suction circumcision is exactly. Let me explain...The centuries-old practice, called metzizah bi peh or metzitzah b'peh, involves a mohel using his mouth to suction blood from the wound after the foreskin is removed. (Mohel is the jewish term for a rabbi trained in circumcision.)
It seems that lately New York has encountered several cases of herpes among newborns who received this procedure -- one infant died, another suffered brain damage, other cases are pending.
Most other Jewish mohels wear surgical gloves and use sterilized instruments to perform the circumcision rite. Many other mohels who perform the oral part of the ritual use a medical tube to suction the blood, several rabbis have said.
With the death of one infant and the severe mental disability of the other it is no wonder NY is seeking to crack down on such cases. Herpes is still uncurable, outbreaks can be treated but the infected must live with various outbreaks and the potential of spreading the disease for the rest of their lives -- pretty tough consequences for a religious rite done to increase cleanliness.
The health departments in 57 New York counties have accepted the protocols, and New York City's department is reviewing them, Novello said.
The guidelines advise mohels conducting oral-suction circumcision about how to correctly wash their hands and clean their fingernails, and says mohels should "rinse mouth thoroughly with a mouthwash containing greater than 25 percent alcohol" for at least 30 seconds.
Mohels believed to have transmitted herpes to newborns through metzitzah b'peh will be tested. If the strain of the baby's herpes matches their own, the mohels will be banned for life from performing the ritual in New York.
Others measures are prescribed for cases where the cause of herpes is not definitive.
Through reading the full article, you can see how the mohels are just as concerned for these children as the health department and both are working together to make this religious procedure as safe as possible. Religion doesn't have to see the regulation as an intrusion just as the health department doesn't have to see these infections as a reason to ban the behavior completely.
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060621/NEWS03/606210352/1197/RSS01
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Not all rabbis are mohels, as your post suggests, but neither is every mohel a rabbi. In some communities a kosher butcher is the most visible mohel. (They have great experience in using the sharpest knives available.) Some Jewish physicians have become mohels. (I'm not certain this is permitted in Orthodox Judaism.)
Please also note that many Jews in Europe and South America do not now circumcise their sons. Even some Jews in the USA do not circumcise. They see this as no more unusual than not keeping kosher. Please see: www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org and www.jewishcircumcision.org
The situation in NYC was tragic. Those who called for an end to, or regulation of, b'peh were called traitors (if they were Jewish), or anti-Semites (if they were not Jewish). Such name-calling trivializes true anti-Semitism. The babies who died were Jewish. How is it anti-Semitic to be concerned about the health and safety of Jewish infants? Why shouldn't Jewish practices that endanger infants and children be subject to the same control placed upon Christian Scientists (who wish to deny medical care to their children), Jehovah's Witnesses (who wish to deny blood transfusions to their children), and Appalachian sects who want their children to be able to prove their faith by handling venomous snakes?
Yep, some Jews don't get circumcised - and some non-Jews do. And I'm glad I was, (with regular surgical tools, of course), because it really is cleaner, especially at a young age. I don't favor the procedure detailed here, but circumcision in general is no more problematic than vaccination of infants - both are medical procedures for their general benefit done (obviously) against their will.
Richard, the tragic part was that the city and state implicity accused the community of having little concern for their own children's health -- a rather grave position.
Among the many thousands of procedures performed per year (just imagine, with the hasidic birthrate being on average 7-8 per family), there have only been only a handful of herpes case in years. And the evidence was far from conclusive that they were transmitted by the mohel. In fact, most experts considered it highly doubtful.
Orthodox Jews objected to the distrustful manner of government officials, and a stringent standard being applied to a rite that was religiously important to them, when no one thought to apply such standards to situations statistically involving a far greater health hazard, such as, say, playing baseball (check the injury stats), or, for that matter, riding in a car.
To compare a circumcision to a vaccination is like comparing an earpiercing to the complete removal of the earlobe, only the foreskin is much more important to sexual function that the earlobe is to hearing.
Not in the slightest. Neither ear piercing nor removal of the earlobe has any legitimate health purpose. Circumcision does. I would be opposed to any parent piercing their child's ears before the child was able to consent to it.
Sorry to get graphic, but I don't know of any sexual function the foreskin serves. If you can mention one, feel free. As far as I'm concerned, in modern society, it's like the appendix, except much easier to get rid of - entirely unnecessary, and a potential health risk. In infants, the foreskin is often larger than the penis itself, and doesn't open entirely when the infant urinates. This diminishes cleanliness and has been known in some cases to cause infection. Removal solves the problem. I'm not saying everyone should get theirs removed, but I am saying that circumcision should be an option for any parents because there is a health-related reason for it and because there is basically no risk of adverse effects (given proper medical procedure).
If this was a non jew sucking the penis of a child it would be considered sexual molestation or child abuse. If this happened to a baby girl in this country it would be considered illegal. Circumcisions of infant girls are performed in Indonesia by doctors in the hospital. Does that make it better? Boys bodies deserve the same respect.
Cutting off part of the sexual organs of a baby boy to satisfy the parents religious beliefs is unacceptable. There is freedom of religious choice in this country and it's his body...let him decide when he is an adult and learns all there is to learn about he foreskin before he decides if he wants to sacrifice part of his sexual organ for his religion.
The oral procedure and circumcision in general shouldn't be grouped together like that.
Altering the bodies of babies because of religious beliefs is certainly not universally justifiable; circumcision is justified not because of religion, but because of health.
Just to respond to those here who are claiming that circumcision provides 'health benefit' both the British Medical Association (BMA) and the American Asscociation of Pediatrics (AAP) are of the position that 'any claimed health benefits are insufficiently proven to justify the procedure'.
ie - some people claim that there are health benefits but the proof they cite is flimsy. Generally it seems that US physicians promote this surgery because it is an easy source of extra cash. $400 for a procedure they can do in 10 minutes. Sexual effects are almost complete unresearched (no really) but a survey in the UK indicated that at least 33% of men circumsised as adults for a problem that already affected their sexual feeling said that circumcision made it WORSE not better.
If circumcision is your religion then fair enough, but please don't pretend that there are any other justifications for an adult cutting a small boy's penis while he screams and (in the case of metziza) sucking it afterwards.
The evidence is there, whether it's enough to provide statistical significance or not. Also, those who reject the health benefits of circumcision are doing so not because they don't see a health difference but because the diseases it helps to avoid are rare anyway, such as urinary tract infections and penile cancer.
Logic implies that extra surface area means more problems, and more difficulty maintaining cleanliness.
I don't see any evidence implying any health-related disadvantages to circumcision. The psychological evidence presented above is about something entirely different - adult circumcision. It makes sense that a change in one's sex organs could result in dissatisfaction.
Your graphic description is misleading. I personally find the idea of an adult jabbing long pointed metal sticks into a small child and squirting bacteria and chemicals into them just as aesthetically displeasing, but I don't oppose vaccinations or claim there's no justification for them.
It's sad that nobody thinks it's insane to want to mutilate a child and suck their bloody penis based on the superstition that God told them to. I don't think the Creator of the universe has anything to do with barbaric nonsense like this. If we use our God-given reason we'd never accept this trash. Thanks, Bob http://www.deism.com
No one is denying the insanity in the original procedure, but you can't convince the faithful that their faith is pointless. All you can do is work toward a place where those who choose can practice their rituals and the safety of the participants in not in jeopardy.