Rabbis Defend Controversial Circumcision Practice to City Health Officials

Written by City & State on . Posted in Daily, Health Care.





This story was written by Wilder Fleming:

At a hearing yesterday in Queens, New York City rabbis defended a controversial circumcision practice that has been blamed for infecting infants with herpes, in some cases causing their death.

The practice, called “metzitzah b’peh,” requires the circumciser, or mohel, to suck the infant’s wounds after circumcision, and has led to at least two cases of infant death in New York since 2000.  The city wants to amend the health law to require mohels to obtain written consent from parents indicating they are fully aware of the risks involved in the ritual circumcision, or bris.

“I myself have performed 25,000 circumcisions, and, thank God, we have not had one single incident … our guidelines are, I think, much stricter than the medical profession,” said Rabbi A. Romi Cohn, a mohel and a Holocaust survivor who represented the American Board of Ritual Circumcision at the hearing.

But Cohn admitted that some people who are not certified according to Jewish law masquerade as mohels in order to make money, sometimes as much as  $500 to $1,000 per bris.

“This is completely forbidden, but unfortunately they are doing it,” Cohn said. “These people don’t know what sterility means. They don’t know about infection. We try to tell parents that if they choose a circumciser, he should be board-certified.”

Mohels argued  the city’s proposed changes would infringe on their religious freedom, but city health officials are pushing back.

“The concept of informed consent puts more of the decision-making power and more of the information in the hands of the parents,” said Susan Blank, the assistant commissioner of the STD Control Program at the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Blank said she was confused by rabbis’ opposition, which she argued allowed them their religious freedom while simultaneously allowing parents greater control over their child’s welfare.

“The Department has received multiple complaints from parents whose children may not have been infected who were also not aware that direct oral suction was going to be performed as part of their sons’ circumcisions,” according to a notice from the New York City Board of Health.

The city’s interference in the ritual could lead to legal action, the mohels said.

“Being a mohel is a religious status…I cannot follow an outside authority,” said Rabbi Levi Heber, the director of the International Bris Association.

Heber said that if the city enacted the proposed amendment the mohels would take legal action to stop it.

“If we feel that our religious freedom is being restricted, we have the right to challenge it in court … we are ready, if needed, to challenge this,” he said.

The Board of Health plans to reach a decision on the proposal in September.





Tags: ,

Trackback from your site.

  • Religious Rights

    I am surprised that New York would really find it within thier realm to infringe on religious practices-Do they demand parents sign written consent when thier children go on Subways or Planes-This sounds ike someone is very bored or has an anti-religious agenda

    • bxpansive

      No one, no one, said that circumcisions would be banned. The subways and planes are regulated and policed. Everyone knows it is not perfect. Not everyone understands communicable diseases. There is nothing wrong with a consent form for a health concern. As usual, the OJ and religious in general seek to control information and constantly pull out the victim card.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C6A4TBCEGDYSN6YG5ATKFQ6RSU Hugh

      Do you send an 8-day old baby on a subway alone? Silly analogy.
      (But let anyone dare to compare cutting male baby genitals with cutting female baby genitals, no matter how minimally – Oh Noes, they’re COMPLETELY different!)

    • Minami

      Is outlawing female circumcision considered anti-religious agenda?

  • Marilyn Milos, RN

    Why are the religious freedom rights of the child not being addressed? If a baby is born in the USA, he is protected by the Constitution and guaranteed freedom of religion. When he is marked as a Jew or Muslim, his rights have been violated. Wait until he is 18, when he can determine what parts of his body he wants or doesn’t want and what religion he chooses for himself.

  • Pingback: Bloomberg on Circumcision Laws: "We Have an Obligation to Keep People Alive"

  • Joseph Englander

    if G-D says that you have to do it when you are 8 days old, that it what it has to be. Let the hyporcites say the same with abortions! what about those homosexuals how many aids and how many deaths are there from those dirty people? and not enough that the Mayor doesn’t stay quiet he encourages it. They are simply self-hating Jews with a lot of money and think that they own and run the world. They should be busy lowering crime not being busy with things that don’t belong to them

  • Minami

    This is disgusting! There is NOTHING honorable or beautiful about being a mohel. These men are just pedophiles who are being paid to be pedophiles. If they really cared about children, they would get regular STD tests and stop practicing if they tested positive for something they could pass onto a child. They don’t. In fact, Rabbi Fischer (who KILLED a child by infecting him with herpes) is still practicing and making money, infecting who knows how many more kids. These men are the scum of the earth.

  • Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin

    City officials should be ashamed that they prefer political
    interests over the welfare of children. Circumcision is a crime against the
    basic human rights of the infant, but sucking infants’ penises is something
    that even supports of circumcision should acknowledge as deadly and detrimental
    to the health of children, and should do everything in their power to
    eliminate. Officials at the city, state and federal levels should declare that
    sucking an infant’s penis is illegal and do their utmost to enforce this
    prohibition. Children should not be left to the mercy of their parents in such
    crucial matters. The authorities have an obligation to protect them.

  • Dan

    Sucking on a child’s penis is the purview of witch doctors and football coaches. Who thinks this should be legal? Only maniacs and perverts!