JERUSALEM: Baby Boy Rushed to the Hospital with Bleeding Complications

Advocates of circumcision often try to trivialize infant circumcision, saying it's "harmless" and "risk-free."

Well, yet another circumcision botch makes the news, this time in Israel. The last one that I know of happened in Pittsburgh, where a rabbi severed a child's entire penis during his bris. Not to mention the recent herpes infection due to metzitzah b'peh in New York.

Keep in mind these are complication cases that make the news; circumcision mishaps are often kept under wraps because there is a conviction to preserve a tradition that is ever under fire. Hospitals themselves may be obscuring these complications.

There is also financial incentive to hide or minimize circumcision complications; circumcision is a widespread practice in the United States. Annually, American doctors circumcise 1.2 million baby boys. At a dollar a pop, that's 1.2 million dollars; infant circumcision can cost anywhere between $100 up to $2,000 each. Therefore American doctors and medical facilities have incentive to hide or minimize complications due to circumcision, Jewish or secular.

Are these complications conscionable, given that infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery?

GREAT BRITAIN: Jewish Circumcision Advocates Grope for Celebrity Endorsement

A new prince has been born to Duchess Kate Middleton and Prince William, and Jewish circumcision advocates are already trying to use this opportunity to seek celebrity endorsement for circumcision.

Reads a headline from jewishpress.com:

"Duchess Kate Had a Boy, Call the Mohel"

The last time I checked, the Royals weren't Jewish. What does the Jewish Press care whether the new prince is circumcised or not?

Reads another headline, this time on MSN:

"Whether the royal baby is getting the royal snip is our new obsession"

Well, at least the authors of this little piece are honest about the fact that they are obsessed. The article goes on:

"Sure we're curious about what the royal baby's name will be, but what we really want to know is: Will there be a royal mohel?"

Why on earth?

And who's "we?"

There doesn't seem to be a name attached to this article. I'd like to know who was the obsessed author of this piece.

This part is rather interesting:

"Princess Diana apparently wasn't a fan, however, and her boys weren't given the snip (there were whispers that Prince Charles had both boys circumcised after Diana's death, but that remains unproven)."

Whispers where? Amongst whom?

Very recently, Prince William was caught taking a wee, and there are pictures where it can clearly be seen that he has an anatomically correct organ.

Those interested in taking a glance at the royal peen can visit this link.

This "whisper" is nothing more than circumfetishist fantasy and Jewish wishful thinking.

Haaretz writes a more reasonable article, but still asks:

"Little prince in the U.K.: What about the bris?"

Again, what in the world do Jews care whether the British goy prince is having a Jewish bris or not? Are they so desperate for validation of their blood ritual that they have to hope the new prince will be made into an unwitting poster boy?

Though the headline fails to conceal a hope that the child is circumcised, by a mohel in a bris no less, this author has integrity, pointing out the lengths to which some have gone to insist that the new prince must be circumcised:

"One group that will not try to claim the prince for its own is the Jewish community."

Will not? Or should not? Judging from other headlines, the above statement is but wishful thinking.

"In a bizarre episode last month a former BBC reporter claimed that Kate, the royal mother, was of matrilineal Jewish descent, making the new prince also a member of the tribe... But serious Jewish genealogists were quick to quash the theory explaining that the Jewish-sounding names in Kate's lineage meant nothing and the prince would not be kosher."

Thank goodness there are Jewish scholars with enough integrity to admit reality.


Still, the author seems to be hopeful that Prince William was ultimately circumcised, going as far as MSN has, quoting "a multitude of sources," this time citing medical necessity instead of Charles rushing the children to be circumcised in Diana's untimely absence.


"If a multitude of sources are to be trusted, then William was circumcised in a medical procedure (according to some versions of his own choice at a much later date) and Harry's foreskin is still intact."

Indeed, who is this "multitude" being cited here as a trustworthy source?

Much to the chagrin of hopeful Jews and circumfetishists, I'm afraid there is visual evidence that Prince William remains as his mother brought him to the world.


Jews and other circumcision advocates want so badly for the new British heir to be ritually circumcised for their own vainglory. Let us hope Kate and William will have the good sense Princess Diana had and spare their child needless mutilation.

UPDATE (7-31-2013):
I just had to post another headline that caught my eye; this time a mohel from the so-called "Initiation Society" eagers to cut the new prince's penis. Reads the Jewish Chronicle online:

"Bring me the royal baby and I’ll give him the snip, says top mohel"

Again, why?

How absolutely revolting.

UPDATE (8-11-2013):
FINALLY, a voice of reason from the UK:

"Prince George Being Circumcised? What Total TOSH!"

Everyone wants to know whether the new prince will be genitally mutilated except the Brits.

Disclaimer: 

The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole.

Related Posts:  

Circumcision vs. Foreskin: Which Is the Fetish?

Related Link:
When the Queen is Dead: Long Live the Patriarchy?

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"

Another Mohel Botches a Bris

Whenever a botched circumcision case makes the news, and people start talking about it, either in the commentary section (when news outlets are actually brave enough to allow them), or parenting forums, or on Facebook, there is always somebody who says something along the lines of:

"This wouldn't have happened if it were performed by a mohel. Mohels are jacks of their trade who do circumcisions for a living."

Actually, mohels are often put on pedestals in more ways than one.

A Jewish bris performed by a mohel is better than a hospital circumcision performed by a doctor for a myriad of reasons. Here are some that I've heard:

• Mohels are more experienced, so your son is sure not to suffer a botched job
• Mohels take less time than doctors(some claim less than 10 seconds), shortening the painful procedure
• Mohels don't use pain medication (this is supposed to be a good thing, in spite of the facts)
• Mohels do their work outside of the hospital, in a religious setting, giving "meaning" to circumcision, making it more "holistic" ("holistic" taking on an entirely different meaning here)

There are other reasons, but these seem to be the main ones.

Now, there have been quite a few documented cases of mohels botching a bris, and being taken to court for it. (For example, here and here.)

But whenever I bring these up, strings and straws are grasped for, here and there, and Jewish circumcision advocates begin to list off alibis of why these are "special cases," and why mohels continue to be the best circumcision performers.

Among these are:

• The child had a pre-existing condition; not the mohel's fault (when a child is found later on to be a hemophiliac, have a heart condition and other ailments)
• The child had a particularly strange-shaped penis to work with; the case is an exception
• The botch was a result of clamp malfunction; mohel is not at fault
• The botch was performed by an inexperienced mohel; not a representative case

It's interesting to hear Jewish advocates of circumcision clarify that the bris has to be performed by a "trained and qualified mohel."

Thus, the reasons why Jewish circumcision performed by a mohel in a bris milah ritual are an ever moving target, and Jewish circumcision and its officiators remain sacrosanct.

Parents Usually Not Forthcoming
One of the reasons why very few botched circumcision jobs make the news is because parents, both Jewish and non-Jewish alike, are complicit in keeping the botched circumcision job and its perpetrator secret.

What parent wants to admit that their child has been permanently disfigured because they decided to agree to a medically unnecessary procedure?

In the case of Jewish parents, who wants to admit that what is perhaps the most precious of Jewish mitzvot is the cause of their child's disfigurement, and in worse cases, death?

As an example, when investigators were querying the Jewish families whose babies were infected with herpes, they would not name names. People in these communities were also unwilling to help find the perpetrator. The preservation of a cherished tradition that people have emotional attachment to is more important.

Circumcisors, Jewish and non-Jewish have reputations to protect. Gentile parents have peace of mind to preserve. Jewish parents have the added burden of protecting their own, and not giving away a holy man who performs the sacred ritual of bris milah. Thus, silence is perpetuated, and parents are complicit in keeping this silence.

That is, until now.

Circumcision Lawsuits
Recent years have seen a series of lawsuits against circumcisors, mohels and doctors, sometimes people who are both, for circumcision mishaps, which indicates that there are parents who are deciding to no longer keep silent about what has happened to their sons.

In a very recent case, a judge approved a $4.6 million settlement on a behalf of a boy who lost the head of his penis in a botched circumcision attempt. The doctor who performed the circumcision used a Mogen clamp, a device notorious for glans amputations, even when used by professionals. So notorious is the Mogen clamp for glans amputations that the company that makes this device went out of business, because it couldn't afford the $11 million dollar lawsuit filed against it, after a mohel severed the end of another baby's glans using one of their clamps

The peculiar thing about Mogen is that up until the very end, they claimed that injury was impossible with the use of their clamp, "when used properly," even after other glans amputations were reported. The injury behind a prior lawsuit at Fulton County Superior Court had already put Mogen on notice about the danger of the device. In a different case, at South Fulton Medical Center, another law suit was won in 2009. In that case, a child lost a third of his glans, and the plaintiffs were awarded 2.3 million dollars.

And, just this month, another mohel was taken to court by parents in Queens. The rabbi told the parents he did an "acceptable job" that was "performed appropriately" and "within the standard of care and skill required of Jewish mohelim and circumcisers." He also allegedly told the parents that calling a doctor wasn't necessary, even though it was obvious that something had gone wrong with the bris. The parents claim that the delay in medical treatment resulted in greater permanent damage to his son, resulting in the necessity for corrective surgery with general anesthesia; the boy may need more operations in the future.

Of course there will be those who claim that this would never happen if the circumcision were "properly performed."

To which I would retort that female circumcision does not result in complications "when properly performed" by the right shaman priestess either.

The self-serving, ad hoc special pleading is astounding.

Interesting note; Jewish groups are challenging a New York law that says mohels have to warn parents of the risks, and have them sign a consent form before proceeding. Does this mean that Jewish parents AREN'T being told of the risk of glans ablations, herpes infections and death?

Hopefully more parents, Jewish and non-Jewish, will find the courage to bring the botched circumcisions of their sons to light.

Related Posts:

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room 

The Ghost of Mogen 

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way 

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes 

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

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

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

Holistic Circumcision: A Blatant Oxymoron

Some mohels use the term "holistic circumcision" to market themselves to gentile clientele. Google the term and you'll find a long list of mohels that offer the service, particularly, and ironically, to Christian parents. (The Bible expressly forbids circumcision to gentiles.) 

"Gentle, compassionate, natural, caring," reads one slogan, adding more to the irony.

Perhaps female circumcision would be permissible in this country if it were performed in a "holistic, gentle, compassionate, caring" manner?

So how did this mash-up even occur?

The rabbis that coin this oxymoron probably use the term to mean a circumcision that is not performed in the hospital, but instead in, what they claim to be, the "gentle, compassionate, caring" environment of the services they provide. (Isn't that convenient!)

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
~Upton Sinclair

But the true meaning of the term "holistic" makes its combination with the term "circumcision" (in this case the forced amputation of a healthy, non-consenting child's foreskin from his penis) truly an oxymoron. Like "fireproof match." It doesn't work.

According to the entry for "holism" in Wikipedia: 
Holism (from ὂλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, whole, entire, total) , is the idea that natural systems (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) and their properties, should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. This often includes the view that systems somehow function as wholes and that their functioning cannot be fully understood solely in terms of their component parts.

Interesting, for tradesmen who consider the foreskin to be "extra" and/or "superfluous" to the male organs, and whose sole services are its extirpation at the expense of the most basic rights of the child.

"Holistic?" Impossible. 

"Gentle?" If you consider holding a child down while you cut off part of his most sensitive and intimate organs "gentle." 

"Compassionate?" If you consider ignoring the child's cries and disregarding his rights to self-autonomy "compassionate." 

"Natural?" Only if you also consider amputating a normal, healthy part of the human body "natural." 

"Caring?" Not for a healthy, non-consenting minor, that's for sure.

All things considered, the juxtaposition of the terms "holistic" and "circumcision" couldn't be any more oxymoronic. A mohel is about as "holistic, gentle, compassionate, natural" and "caring" as a doctor.

So why are mohels reaching out to a Christian clientele?

I can only speculate that the increasing scrutiny of circumcision and the growing intactivist movement has intimidated them (IE, the San Francisco circumcision ban), and they hope to establish strength in numbers.

Perhaps these mohels have never read the New Testament. Or, at the very least, they count on Christians never having read it.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
Galatians 5:1-4

"Peaceful", "holistic," "painless," "bloodless" circumcision?

Is that anything like a "peaceful," "holistic," "painless," "bloodless" female circumcision?

How can I get one of those for my daughter?

Because you know, I'm the parent, I decide, and it's my choice what I do with my children.

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

I've already written extensively on the subject of mohels infecting their subjects with herpes via oral suction.

Defenders of the practice have tried to argue that there is no way to know whether or not mohels actually gave their subjects herpes.

"Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent... 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."
~Philip Sherman, "Mohel to the Stars"

Well, now there is simply no doubt.

According to The Jewish Week, Yitzchok Fischer, one of the mohels who has been tied to several neonatal herpes infections has tested positive for the herpes virus.

'Nuff said.

The ball is in New York's court to act accordingly.

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

In a recent post, I talk about the second reported case, where a child dies as a result of contracting herpes from a mohel through an obscure circumcision ritual that is practiced only by ultra-orthodox Jews. The ritual in question is called "metzitzah b'peh", and it involves the mohel putting his mouth on the wounded genitals of a newly circumcised Jewish baby boy to suck blood from it.

Well, as I read more and more into it, the plot just keeps getting thicker and thicker.

The last time I heard, Yitzchok Fischer of New York was found to have infected three newborns with herpes via metzitzah b'peh, one of whom died. He was basically pardoned by Health Commissioner of the day, Thomas R. Frieden, and 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.

To prevent the transmission of herpes to other babies, the New York State Department of Health adopted a medical protocol in 2006, requiring ultra-orthodox mohels to wash their mouths with Listerine before performing the procedure.

Well, according to another recent report, the practice was rescinded less than a year later. According to The Jewish Week, Fischer was involved in the infection of yet *another* infant, who was admitted to a hospital with clinical diagnosis of neonatal herpes via oral suction in May, 2007. Based on that, the health department ordered Fischer to stop practicing metzitzah b’peh.

In my last post regarding this matter, I wondered as to the identity of the mohel responsible, and why it was not yet known. Authorities were investigating and the families involved weren't being to forthcoming as to the identity of the person responsible. I wondered if it was this self-same Fischer person whose identity people were trying to protect. Well, it looks like might have actually had reason to suspect. Apparently, despite his order from the health department to stop practicing the obscure oral suction ritual, Fischer is still performing it.

Only Two Out of Many
As I read more, I come to find out that while only these two cases have made the news, Haaretz reports that countless other deaths have not. And these are just the deaths; reports keep coming in of babies being admitted to hospitals for herpes infections with lesions around their genitals. You want to know why you hardly hear of complications due to circumcision? Well, this is why.

What is frustrating is that despite all the evidence piling up, mohels like Philip Sherman have the nerve to act singled out and "upset" that health authorities are doing their jobs.

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

"Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent... 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."

How long are practitioners of a deadly ritual going to be allowed to get away with denial?

All I've got to say is, the degree to which New York authorities are tip-toeing around the eggshells is getting to be quite ridiculous.

Children are DYING, and they're more concerned about "upsetting" the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community?

How long until they realize that this "tradition" is costing children their LIVES?

Sometimes traditions have to be abandoned.

This is a tradition whose time has come.

May one day this world be a safe place for children of both sexes, free of life-endangering "traditions."

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...