WASHINGTON POST: Ritual Circumcision After Blizzard Painted as "Triumph"

A recent Washington Post article tries very hard to put airs on what would be nothing more than a Jewish child circumcision rite.

The only factor that would mark this one ritual different than any other one that happens is the fact that it happened after a major snow storm.

The storm would have made life difficult for thousands of other people, but somehow this story stood above the rest, making the ordeal worthy of an article on the Washington Post.

The author attempts to frame the whole situation, flights being cancelled, snow being an obstacle for the arrival of the ritual circumciser etc. as some sort of "powerful story" of "struggle" and "the triumph of the human spirit."

To some, this may be the case, but to those of us not conditioned to accept forced male infant genital mutilation as "normal," it's quite the opposite.

Perhaps it is a "triumph" in the eyes of those with a need to fulfill what they see as divine commandment to mutilate the genitals of an otherwise healthy, non-consenting child, but from the point of view of the child, who is weak, innocent and vulnerable, it can be nothing more than abandonment and loss.

The author appears to want to elicit a standing ovation and applause, and many will comply without thinking twice.

But how would readers react if, instead of male infant circumcision, the tale were bout female infant circumcision?

What if this story were, instead, about a couple, who, after a long trial of "strength and endurance," a sandstorm that posed as an obstacle for instance, were "finally" able to have their daughter circumcised?

Would it matter to readers that their family saw circumcising a baby daughter as this "long-standing tradition?"

Would it matter that they saw this as a matter of religious sacrament?

Would it matter that it was a "struggle" for relatives and the ritual circumciser to arrive "in the nick of time?"

Surely arguments that male infant circumcision dwarfs in comparison would quell disgust.

A freshly severed child's foreskin.

An infant's clitoris, barely visible, on a pair of scissors.

Surely it would be of comfort that the procedure was performed by a trained professional using sterile utensils under pristine conditions.

Surely adult women saying they are circumcised and they are "just fine" ought to justify it.

Somehow, I doubt that arguments of "tradition," "religion" and "parental prerogative" would be enough to silence the ensuing shitstorm.

The snowstorm in the Washington Post story is a diversion; merely the tip of the iceberg.

The child endured unnecessary pain, and a needless risk for herpes, infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Forget all these other challenges the child was put through, everyone let's pay attention to that nasty snowstorm.

The efforts the author goes through to beautify what is happening, the fact that there has to be an article trying to paint this story as a "success" after "a long struggle" speaks to how the author really feels about the situation.

This could have been a story about someone finally getting a much needed heart.

A doctor making it in time to perform an emergency c-section that saved both mother and child.

You know?

An actual emergency in which there were real stakes.

But this?

Where a child's life was put at stake?

Part of the most intimate part of his body permanently destroyed?

His sexual experience changed forever?

Sorry, but it's a terrible attempt at beautifying a sick, disgusting tradition.

The author in the Washington Post article strives to make this a beautiful story about parents who "struggle" but "finally made it," but strip away the "tradition," "endurance" and religious mumbo-jumbo, take away the blizzard and you're left with nothing more than ritual child abuse and genital mutilation.

It is nothing but sick, disgusting, self-serving opportunism on the part of this Washington Post author, and it's deplorable.

Some may yet defend ritual genital mutilation as "tradition," and I find this ironic.

For one, the fact that "religious tradition" cannot justify female infant circumcision demonstrates that it fails as an argument.

And secondly, the fact that the child's mother is a rabbi, and she doesn't have to undergo some sort of genital cutting ritual, not to mention the fact that the ritual mutilation was performed by a female mohel, exposes the hypocrisy in invoking "tradition" as an alibi; this goes to show you that traditions can and do change.

Ritual male infant circumcision is one of those traditions whose time has come.

The time has come to condemn this tradition in male children, as in female children, for what it is; ritualized child abuse and forced genital mutilation.

Relevant Websites:
Beyond the Bris: News and Views on Jewish Circumcision

Related Posts:

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

Related Articles:

Female Circumcision Is Becoming More Popular in Malaysia

A Cutting Tradition - The New York Times

Circumcised women can have healthy sex lives: expert - SBS

Stories That Didn't End So Triumphantly:

TEL AVIV: Botched baby dies - circumcision exonerated again

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

ISRAEL: Baby's Penis Reattached after Mohel Botches Circumcision

PITTSBURGH: Penis cut off, reattached, rabbi sued

ISRAEL: Baby loses 1/3 of penis in worse-than-usual circumcision

NEW YORK: Hypospadias - rabbi botches circumcision

Johannesburg: Jewish circumciser slapped with life ban after botched bris

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

Yet another case of herpes given to a baby by a mohel via metzitzah b'peh (ultra-orthodox tradition of oral suction of the circumcision wound). Apparently, this is the 2nd confirmed case of the year.

A law was enacted dictating mohels that perform this practice disclose the risks to parents, but there is no actual ban or regulation of metzitzah b'peh, mohels face no penalties whatsoever if the waivers are not signed, and even if they are, no one is held responsible if the child contracts herpes, rendering it basically useless.

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reports no form was submitted for the procedure, but says it has no plans to pursue any kind of legal case.

There have been 13 confirmed cases by the DOHMH since 2000, although it is alleged by Rabbi Hershel Schachter, an influential senior rabbinic authority at Yeshiva University, that New York City hospitals and the city’s Department of Health are suppressing disclosure of even more cases.

It is obvious to me why anyone would want to downplay the number of these cases; religious advocates want to preserve their traditions, the Health Department doesn't want to be labeled Nazi German, and health boards want to continue to tout circumcision as being "risk-free."

What is it going to take for authorities to do their jobs and protect the rights, healths and lives of children?

Related Articles:

Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

 

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

 

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

A two-week old baby boy died in a Brooklyn hospital, his official cause of death pronounced as "disseminated herpes simplex virus Type 1, complicating ritual circumcision with oral suction."

The Jewish tradition of circumcision, particularly an obscure tradition practiced by only the most ultra-orthodox Jews, is to blame. The tradition in question, known in Hebrew as "metzitzah b'peh", involves the ritual circumciser putting his mouth on the wounded genitals of a newly circumcised Jewish baby boy to suck blood from it.

 Mohel Performing Metzitzah B'Peh on Baby

The cause of death clearly indicts the tradition in question, but this finding has made rabbis and mohels that perform it, according to KTLA, "upset."

According to one mohel Philip Sherman (who also happens to toot his own horn in New York, and LOUDLY), "Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent." Where does he get these figures? Who is taking count?

"This is part of the anti-religious, anti-circumcision trend," Sherman blasts.

This could be it.

Maybe.

Or maybe, just MAYBE it might have just a tiny, teensy-weensy bit to do with the rights of the children involved?

You know, some of whom actually lose more than just their foreskin, if not DIE???

Mohels in Denial
In my encounters on the internet, I often hear people boast about how mishaps never happen with Jewish mohels. Jewish mohels, some advocates argue, are the most qualified people to be performing circumcisions, because they "do this for a living."

Strangely enough, when mishaps like glans ablations (in recent years there have been a few law suits involving glans ablations at the hands of mohels) or even DEATHS happen, the mohel, nor the circumcision are EVER to blame. There's always something wrong with the child, or some outside influence was to blame. There was something wrong with the clamp. The child had a bad heart. He was struck by lighting. Whatever it takes to draw attention away from the fact that the child was doing perfectly well prior to the circumcision.

Defends circumciser Sherman: "The baby could have gotten herpes from a relative or someone in the Hospital, or many other people... You can't say for sure it was the circumcision."

Or the baby might have gotten it directly from the mohel who may have carried the virus?

But sources won't say. At least two sources say that the mohel in question cannot be identified. (Here and here.)

Why not find the mohel and test him for herpes?

We've Seen This Before
This wouldn't be the first time that a child has died as a result of contracting herpes from the mohel through the oral suction ritual. In 2005, Yitzchok Fischer of New York was found to have infected three newborns with herpes via metzitzah b'peh, one of whom died. As in this current case, rabbis and mohels raised a ruckus, and Fischer was basically pardoned by Health Commissioner of the day, Thomas R. Frieden. No further action was to be done regarding getting Orthodox leaders to abandon metzitzah b'peh. Frieden's open letter to the Jewish community can be read here.

Who is this mystery mohel? Could it be the self-same Yitzchok Fischer and his name is shamelessly being withheld to protect his identity?

Why?
Why is it that parents go to jail if they try to circumcise their own children, but when a mohel kills a child, rabbis and mohels get "upset" and they automatically get a get-out-of-jail-free card? Is it because doing something about stopping further child endangerment is considered "anti-Semitic" when the perpetrators are Jewish?

"Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent," argues Philip Sherman. But is this any real justification?

There is a risk for infection, period. There are other risks too, such as partial or full ablation, and even death, as we see here. Because the child is healthy and not in need of any surgical intervention, how is anything above ZERO conscionable?

This is absolutely revolting. If the sex of the baby were female, the most devout imam would be arrested and jailed, and it wouldn't matter if it made other imams or Muslim leaders "upset."

It is absolutely despicable, absolutely disgusting that anybody would ever seek to justify this "tradition." This so-called "tradition" has already produced two reported deaths (and possibly more that have gone unreported), and religious leaders get "upset" that anyone dare call it out?

Can't we just call this "tradition" what it is?

Glorified sado-masochistic child fellatio?

Let It Be Clear
Circumcision carries risks, including infection, partial or full ablation, and even death. The risks are present whether it be carried out by a secular non-Jewish doctor or a mohel. Because it is performed on children who are healthy and not in need of any surgical intervention, the risks are unconscionable.

How many deaths and circumcision botches will it take for people to wake up?

DISCLAIMER:
What I've expressed in this blog is my own individual opinion, and it does not necessarily reflect the view of all intactivists. Please do not confuse my disdain for the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors with a hate for Jews. The overwhelming majority of circumcisions in this country are secular, non-Jewish circumcisions that happen at hospitals. I oppose the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors whether it be carried out by mohels or by secular doctors. Genital mutilation, whither it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is, in the end, still genital mutilation. ~Joseph4GI

Circumcision Death: Another One Bites the Dust

So I log onto Facebook to see this story.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/tot_shock_hosp_death_Eja8FLrJF8YtHPCR3JMSMP

Also released here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383844/Jamaal-Coleson-Jrs-parents-accuse-Manhattan-hospital-fatal-botched-circumcision.html

Apparently a 2yo boy wakes up from being put under for a circumcision. He dies 10 hours later, and for whatever reason, people can't figure out why.

The boy was circumcised at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and they've run an autopsy to determine the cause of death of this child, as if it weren't obvious enough. They're apparently conducting a further "internal review," and they're going to report their "findings" to the state Department of Health.

This wouldn't be the first time Beth Israel gets in trouble over circumcision related complications; a few years ago, as much as 15 babies were infected with MRSA following their circumcisions due to terrible hygiene practices.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/04/11/state_details_safety_lapses_at_beth_israel/?page=2

It will be infuriating, yet not surprising, that this child's death will be attributed to some secondary, unrelated mishap. The "right" amount of anaesthesia wasn't used, or there will have been some overlooked allergic reaction that caused this child to die. ANYTHING to hide the fact that the child's death is directly related to his circumcision.

The biggest question here is, DID this boy have to die? What was the reason he had to be circumcised in the first place? What was his problem? The medical or clinical indication for surgery? Did the child have a critical condition that could have only been remedied through surgery?

It seems this child's circumcision is tied to his parents' wedding. Was his circumcision going to be part of the marriage package? Perhaps one of the parents said that the boy is circumcised or the marriage was off? This report isn't giving too many details. If this boy was perfectly healthy and was not in need of surgery, then this alone begs the question of why he was even put under general anaesthesia in the first place.

In the comments section of this news article (first link), someone has already suggested that had the circumcision been performed by a mohel on the 8th day, the circumcision would have been a "success." This wouldn't be the first time I hear this line either. It never ceases to amuse me how people can say this brazenly with a straight face, forgetting, perhaps intentionally, of cases where mohels have been responsible for the deaths of newborn infants.

NY Mohel Infects 3 Babies With Herpes: One of Them Dies, Nothing Happens
A few years ago in New York, a mohel gave herpes to three baby boys, one of whom died. Orthodox Jews observe a practice called "metzitzah b'peh" whereby the mohel sucks blood directly from the child's wounded penis, and the disease was transmitted this way. Be that as it may, every effort was made to dismiss this notion, and city officials were unable to persuade Orthodox leaders to abandon the practice. The city was at odds with dealing with the Orthodox leaders who were angered by the infringement of their "religious freedoms," and its mandate to protecting public health.

Here, again, we observe the same attitude of looking under a rock for the elephant in the room, with the health department "investigating" whether or not the rabbi was responsible for infecting the infants.

Quoth Mayor Bloomberg:
"We're going to do a study, and make sure that everybody is safe and at the same time, it is not the government's business to tell people how to practice their religion."

What would he have said had the situation been different? What would he have said had the subjects been, oh say, girls, and the person responsible was a ritual shamaness? Would it have been the government's "business" to tell people how to practice their religion then? Would Mayor Bloomberg had been as easy around the eggshells?

"Religious freedom" won out in this case, however, and the Health Commissioner of the day, Thomas R. Frieden basically let the mohel off the hook. Additionally, no further action was to be done regarding getting Orthodox leaders to abandon metzitzah b'peh.

Read the Frieden's open letter to the Jewish community here:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/std/std-bris-commishletter.pdf

Quoth Rabbi David Niedorman of the United Jewish Organization:
"The Orthodox Jewish community will continue the practice that has been practiced for over 5,000 years... We do not change. And we will not change."

Time and time again, people feign ignorance and the foxes are allowed to guard the henhouse. Defenders of oral suction say there is no proof that it spreads herpes at all. In Rockland County, where the mohel lives in the Hasidic community of Monsey, he has been barred from performing oral suction. But the state health department retracted a request it had made to him to stop the practice. And in New Jersey, where the mohel has done some of his 12,000 circumcisions, the health authorities have been silent.

According to the mohel's lawyer, there was no "conclusive proof" that he had spread herpes, and that he should be allowed to continue the practice. According to the mohel, the twin who died and the Staten Island boy both had herpes-like rashes before they were circumcised and were seen by a pediatrician who approved their circumcision. (He knew this and yet he continued?) In other words, "not my fault."

Quoth Kenneth Glassberg, whose private practice includes Hasidic families:
"If I knew something caused a problem from a medical point of view, I would recommend against it."

Sure you would Glassberg, sure you would.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?_r=2

Death at a London Synagogue
Whenever deaths happen due to circumcision, specificaly male circumcision, it seems everyone knows to look the other way. People seem to pretend like they don't know at all what happened; you have a dead child who was alive and well not too long ago, and it was all due to some mysterious force of nature. Nobody knows what happened. The fact that the child was circumcised moments before is considered beyond suspicion a priori.

In February, 2007, a boy circumcised at Golders Green Synagogue turns blue bleeding from his nose and mouth 30 minutes after the procedure. Here too, we see the same exact, well-rehearsed dance. Nobody knows exactly how it happened, only that it happened just after circumcision, and the circumcision had nothing to do with it. Initially it was ruled that the boy died as a direct result of the procedure, but the inquest years later rules the boy died of "natural causes."

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/4588885.Baby_died_of__natural_causes__after_circumcision/

The coroner ruled the procedure had nothing to do with the boy's death, but instead blamed sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Quoth the coroner:
“I am satisfied to say the death was as a result of a naturally occurring disease process which simply ran its course.
“Any connection with Amitai's tragic death and the circumcision itself can be ruled out and I accept the circumcision was skillfully and deftly undertaken.
“There can be no suggestion that the Rabbi was in any way at fault or to blame for this tragedy.”

Quoth the "world leading expert" on SIDS that was called to give "evidence":
“With the circumcision itself, I can't think of any mechanism that would be responsible.”

(Perhaps he simply can't think... You don't suppose the child was struck by lightning?)

Quoth Jonathan Goldberg QC of the Initiation Society (a circumcision interest group by the way):
“This verdict puts paid to those ill-intentioned people who would have tried to use this tragedy to attack Jewish circumcision. (Rather than determining the boy's cause of death, this is what seems to be the most important...)
“Professor Fleming, a world renowned expert, demonstrated conclusively that the death was a freak occurrence due to sudden infant death syndrome, wholly unrelated to the circumcision.”

Yes, Professor Fleming. He would have had no previous interaction with you, now would he.

Of special interest in this ruling is that the Initiation Society, a pro-circumcision interest group was represented by a QC; non-circumcision interest groups such as NORM-UK and the child were not. The pathologist who performed the autopsy was not called, bringing into question what was the "naturally occuring disease that ran its course" and how the coroner knew this.

Opponents of infant genital mutilation are not "ill-intentioned" and have no focus on Jewish ritual; circumcision is also practiced by Muslims and non-theraputic "routine" circumcision is performed on children of secular families. It is a human rights issue no-matter who performs it, especially when death follows.

Back to our original boy at Beth Israel
I'll ask again:
DID this boy have to die? What was the reason he had to be circumcised in the first place? What was his problem? The medical or clinical indication for surgery? Did the child have a critical condition that could have only been remedied through surgery?

Surgery is a deliberate and intentional wound, and there are dangers any time a person is subjected to it. The dangers are infection and/or bleeding to death. Furthermore, there are dangers someone must be put under general anaesthesia; any operation that requires general anasthesia is a major operation. It is irresponsible, at best, to put a 2 year old under general anasthesia who had no medical problems at all.

Some might say that "he wouldn't have died if it were performed correctly." Or "he wouldn't have died had he been circumcised by a mohel." But here's the bottom line: If this boy was perfectly healthy and was not in need of surgery, it doesn't matter who had done it nor how; his death is completely irreconcilable.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less pretending like they can give parents of said individuals any kind of "choice." But will anybody come to this obvious conclusion?

Here's exactly what will happen; it will be determined the boy had some overlooked, pre-existing condition. That, or there was something wrong with the general anaesthesia. At any rate, Beth Israel will promise they'll "do better next time." As usual, the hospital gets off the hook and the medically unnecessary child butchery continues. What a life...