NYC, rabbis clash over circumcision ritual
NEW YORK (AP) - A group of rabbis is clashing with New York City health officials over the safety of an ancient circumcision ritual.
Three rabbis and three Jewish groups asked a federal court Thursday to block enforcement of a new regulation requiring written parental consent for a rite called "metzitzah b'peh," in Hebrew, which city health experts said can spread infection and has killed two children since 2004.
During the ritual, the person performing the circumcision attempts to cleanse the wound by sucking blood from the cut and spitting it aside.
The saliva contact puts the infant at increased risk of getting herpes simplex, a virus that is carried harmlessly by a large majority of adults but that can be deadly in newborns.
New York City's Health Department said it has documented 11 cases of the infection since 2000 among children believed to have undergone the ritual. Ten required hospitalization. Two developed brain damage. Two died.
The deaths prompted some doctors to call for the practice to be banned entirely, but the city's Board of Health adopted a compromise approach instead last month. Under the new rule, mohelim performing the circumcision would be required inform parents that the city believed the procedure was dangerous and have them sign a consent form.
No one would collect the forms, and the mohelim would be required to keep them for a year before destroying them.
In their lawsuit filed Thursday, rabbis Samuel Blum, Ahron Leiman and Shloime Eichenstein said the city had exaggerated the potential for harm and infringed on their religious freedom.
If the regulation were to take effect, rabbis "will be forced to serve as the Department's mouthpiece for dispensing opinion and 'advice' that directly undermines the required religious ritual that these mohelim regularly perform, in violation of their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise," the suit said.
The lawsuit, joined by the Central Rabbinical Congress of the USA and Canada, Agudath Israel of America and the International Bris Association, also argued that the city's safety studies were flawed and that the procedure, when performed properly, was "very safe." It said compelling the rabbis to warn against the procedure was unconstitutional.
In a statement responding to the suit, the city's health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Farley, called the regulation "lawful, appropriate and necessary."
"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.
Concerns about the safety of metzitzah b'peh go back to at least the mid-19th century, when most Jews abandoned or modified the rite because of concerns about its role in spreading disease. Today, most Reform, Conservative and modern Orthodox mohels use gauze, or a sterile tube, to pull blood from the wound.
The ritual is still practiced widely, however, in New York City's large population of ultra-Orthodox Jews. After the regulation was adopted in September, some rabbis vowed to ignore it, saying the government had no business regulating a religious practice.
Three rabbis and three Jewish groups asked a federal court Thursday to block enforcement of a new regulation requiring written parental consent for a rite called "metzitzah b'peh," in Hebrew, which city health experts said can spread infection and has killed two children since 2004.
During the ritual, the person performing the circumcision attempts to cleanse the wound by sucking blood from the cut and spitting it aside.
The saliva contact puts the infant at increased risk of getting herpes simplex, a virus that is carried harmlessly by a large majority of adults but that can be deadly in newborns.
New York City's Health Department said it has documented 11 cases of the infection since 2000 among children believed to have undergone the ritual. Ten required hospitalization. Two developed brain damage. Two died.
The deaths prompted some doctors to call for the practice to be banned entirely, but the city's Board of Health adopted a compromise approach instead last month. Under the new rule, mohelim performing the circumcision would be required inform parents that the city believed the procedure was dangerous and have them sign a consent form.
No one would collect the forms, and the mohelim would be required to keep them for a year before destroying them.
In their lawsuit filed Thursday, rabbis Samuel Blum, Ahron Leiman and Shloime Eichenstein said the city had exaggerated the potential for harm and infringed on their religious freedom.
If the regulation were to take effect, rabbis "will be forced to serve as the Department's mouthpiece for dispensing opinion and 'advice' that directly undermines the required religious ritual that these mohelim regularly perform, in violation of their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise," the suit said.
The lawsuit, joined by the Central Rabbinical Congress of the USA and Canada, Agudath Israel of America and the International Bris Association, also argued that the city's safety studies were flawed and that the procedure, when performed properly, was "very safe." It said compelling the rabbis to warn against the procedure was unconstitutional.
In a statement responding to the suit, the city's health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Farley, called the regulation "lawful, appropriate and necessary."
"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.
Concerns about the safety of metzitzah b'peh go back to at least the mid-19th century, when most Jews abandoned or modified the rite because of concerns about its role in spreading disease. Today, most Reform, Conservative and modern Orthodox mohels use gauze, or a sterile tube, to pull blood from the wound.
The ritual is still practiced widely, however, in New York City's large population of ultra-Orthodox Jews. After the regulation was adopted in September, some rabbis vowed to ignore it, saying the government had no business regulating a religious practice.
I'm all for freedom of religeon and the right to practice the tennants of that faith, but this seems a pretty obvious case of 'your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins'....
Â
Personally, If I (although unfathomable to me) chose to participate in such a ritual, I would want (at the very least) some verification that the person doing it wasn't going to infect my child with a disease. We don't live in the 2nd century BC, there are viruses and parasites that can be transmitted via the mouth that can kill your child. Even if something doesn't kill them (contrary to Mr Nietzsche may say) can cripple or maim them.Â
Â
I'm going to have to take a bit to consider how it is that someone would actually allow a person to put their mouth on my childs penis, but I suppose there's also Muslums who think that blowing up a school gets them into heaven too.Â
One would think that folks would want to ask their 'god' why he had a fetish for the foreskin of little boys. Â What if their religion required them to tattoo the 10 Commandments on the baby's face? would that be OK? If adults want to believe in savage mythology, the fine... that is their choice. Â But why force it on your children?
"...will be forced to serve as the Department's mouthpiece for dispensing opinion and 'advice' that directly undermines the required religious ritual..."
Â
Ok then require all parents who have this procedure get certification from a physician that they understand and know the risks before it is done. If a child gets ill from some VD and they don't have consent, fine them and threaten them with child services (don't be kind about it).
Â
Does that make you happier?
Â
Look 1/10,000 boys have this issue, but we have fewer percentage of women get toxic shock but it is a requirement on every feminine hygiene product (I have 4 sisters). So why would you not want to make sure parents know all of the risks? It's not like they will say "Oh no, we had no issue with the ritual cutting off of parts of our son, then the sucking using the mouth of a man on it to "clean" the wound, but we will totally not do it thinking the boy might get some VD. "
Â
You can either be reasonable yourselves and have your Rabbi get consent, OR you can have the state do it.
Â
What would you prefer?
Â
What is there to clash about? This is 2012; we have ways of cleansing wounds that don't borderline on pedophilia. First, do it in a sterile environment (this is a new millenia: we have hospitals, now) and use sterile equipment, etc... Good grief! If any doubt, don't do it!
sucking the bloody penis... WTF....THats called sex abuse in all other forms of society. Its disgusting how religion is a cover to all forms of abuse in this world.
circumcision is male butchery and barbaric, I can't believe we still perform elective surgery on boys who don't necessarily give consent in the 21st century.
I was stationed in Israel when I was in the Marines. I got invited to a bris, but no one told me how it was done. I darn near fainted... I loved my tour there, it was an interesting place to see.
Â
Â
I'm a big fan of Jews and Judaism and Israel .... really, I am. But some of the ultra-orthodox stuff goes way beyond what should be acceptable. This practice being one of them. If any other group was accused of cutting off part of their infant son's penis and sucking the blood out, they would be sent to prison with the quickness and the cult disbanded. This is messed up, and it's time the state of NY stepped in to protect these kids. I mean, it's a barbaric enough practice anyway ... but infants are getting penile infections from oral bacteria and STDs?!??? C'mon already!!! WTF?? Stop mutilating penises!! If the best argument is "the doctor lopped mine off when I was a baby and I'm still a man" then we need to start asking women who haven't had their genitals hacked what they'd think of having it done. Sorry to all the men who've been snipped. You literally don't know what you're missing.
I'm not Jewish, but have had the procedure.
Â
What is the problem?
@WebFootSTi same here, but the problem is you are not supposed to 3 things: 1) Put your mouth on a childs penis 2) Put your mouth on any wound ANYWHERE 3) Use your spit when there is REAL Antibiotics available. Baby screeming : "get that dirty mouth away from me, I don't know where it's been!" They used to tell us that the mouth was the dirtiest part of the human body.
 @iamtroglodite The baby is screaming because it's in pain No one should be forced to undergo a medical procedure against their will, certainly not one that is so life changing such as the inhumane act of circumcision.
Â
Also, the overuse and dependance on antibiotics is fueling these so-called super bugs and then people wonder why they fail to work when you need them most.
 @WebFootSTi You wouldn't know because yours was chopped off. Hope you didn't get herpes when they did it. =(
"the person performing the circumcision attempts to cleanse the wound by sucking blood from the cut and spitting it aside"
Â
I'm guessing that you didn't have that done.
 @WebFootSTi The problem is that NO ONE should have their mouth on a baby's penis! EVER!!!!
Adoption of this regulation probably will not stop Orthodox Jews and their rabbis from doing what they believe Jewish law ordains. It will put those who officiate (rabbis and mohelim) at risk of arrest and confinement, and how they would then respond to that is anyone's guess.Â
 @felines99 My guess is they would have them start using Listerine before performing the ritual.