Baby dies After Rabbi/Oral suction Post-Circ {merged}

[Sinister Rouge]

This has to be the most disturbing thing I've read in weeks. It has been revealed that baby boy died this past fall after contracting Herpes Simplex from a mohel who sucked the blood from the child's penis as he performed his circumcision.

http://gothamist.com/2012/03/03/infant_ ... _herpe.php

Gah. I can't even wrap my head around the multiple levels of wrongness in order to generate a response beyond "WHAT THE EVERLOVING FUCK WERE/ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING."

I cannot respect a religious practice that so blatantly violates any human being, let alone a newborn.

ETA link.

[Kitty]

suck the...slsdajijoaisjaisosjdjdsi

WHAT THE FUCK WAS HIS MOUTH DOING ANYWHERE NEAR A BABY'S PENIS?!

[keeperrox]

suck the...slsdajijoaisjaisosjdjdsi

WHAT THE FUCK WAS HIS MOUTH DOING ANYWHERE NEAR A BABY'S PENIS?!

Um, ever heard of a bris? That is one of the more disturbing parts of an already disturbing Jewish tradition. Thankfully, it's not common for the mohel to suck at the wound any more, and they typically use a glass tube. Unfortunately for this infant, that wasn't the case.

[treemom]

It is part of an ultra orthodox circumcision kitty, not sexual, that being said, I believe circumcision from mohels should be somewhat regulated and as this particular practice is dangerous it should not be legal.

[Sinister Rouge]

How the fuck was the rabbi not charged with sexual abuse of a minor?

[Kitty]

Um, ever heard of a bris? That is one of the more disturbing parts of an already disturbing Jewish tradition. Thankfully, it's not common for the mohel to suck at the wound any more, and they typically use a glass tube. Unfortunately for this infant, that wasn't the case.

I've heard of the bris, I just didn't know about sucking at the wound. That's just... wtf.

[Boogalou]

That is so sad. The article said other babies have contracted herpes from this as well.

[Witsec7]

n 2004, city health officials revealed that a baby boy died after a circumcision carried out by a Rockland County rabbi who specializes in the centuries-old, ultra-Orthodox ritual known as metzizah b’ peh.

Under the practice, the rabbi or mohel removes blood from the wound with his mouth — a practice city health officials have criticized, saying it carried “inherent risks†for babies.

In 2004, three infants circumcised by Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer were determined to have contracted herpes, city officials said.

Among them were twins circumcised in October 2004 after Fischer performed the religious ceremony known as a bris.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/inf ... z1o6WUhWs8

[valsa]

How the fuck was the rabbi not charged with sexual abuse of a minor?

Because people give a pass to things they never otherwise would, as long as you slap a label that says "religious" on it.

[Sinister Rouge]

Spot on Valsa - Check this out: articles.nydailynews.com/2005-10-18/news/18309951_1_ultra-orthodox-rabbis-rabbinical-court-religious-freedom

"AMID PRESSURE FROM the ultra-Orthodox rabbis, the Bloomberg administration has dropped a lawsuit that sought to protect babies from a deadly virus.

The city Health Department passed the matter onto a Jewish religious court, ending a restraining order that prohibited a popular rabbi from performing an ancient circumcision rite.

Dozens of ultra-Orthodox rabbis had complained to Mayor Bloomberg at an August City Hall meeting, saying the ban was a restriction on religious freedom.

Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer was suspected of infecting three babies with herpes while using his mouth to suck blood from the wounds of newly circumcised boys in a ritual called metzizah bi peh. One of the babies died.

At the time, the city Health Department said Fischer's conduct "constitutes a threat to the public health."

But the suit was quietly withdrawn last month, and the city said it would let a rabbinical court from the Central Rabbinical Congress investigate the practice.

Fischer's lawyer, Mark Kurzmann, denied the babies caught herpes from the rabbi."

Catholic priests would be prosecuted for giving children herpes through a sexual act, but it's okay if it's a rabbi. Good grief.

[NurseNell]

I have a friend who is a M.D. and a mohel, he's orthodox, he doesn't do this. I couldn't get the article to open up. Where did this happen? Rockland County, NY? There seem to be a lot of really ultra orthodox Jews there.

[Mommy22alyns]

Holy hell. :o

[Elle]

You can't cut a girl's genitalia just because it's a part of some religions, and you can't fondle or suck on a boy's penis. So why the ever-loving fuck is it legal to not only cut off part of a boy's penis, but to then suck on it, just because your'e Jewish?

[Boogalou]

I think I see where this thread is headed...

:auto-mysterymachine:

I just wanted to use the Mystery Machine, I never knew it was there!

[Sinister Rouge]

Honestly though, I think the knowledge that circumcision for religious reasons has roots in this form raises some good questions about the practice. Why do ultra orthodox Jews practice "Metzitzeh B'peh," while other Jews apparently don't? Also, does it really not cross their minds at all that their rabbi sucking on their infants penis is blatant sexual assault?

[Sinister Rouge]

Also, since circumcision was done routinely on females as recently as 50 years ago: had a rabbi put his mouth on a female child's genitalia, would there have been any objection?

[FaustianSlip]

Yeah, I'm not touching this one with a ten-foot pole except to say that I've been to multiple brisses, Orthodox ones, and there was no sucking of anything going on. Ugh. This isn't even an "Orthodox" practice in the sense that all Orthodox Jews do it- it's very fringe, as far as I'm aware, and should be outlawed.

I don't even understand the second question. Female circumcision has never been mandated in any Jewish context, so far as I know. It's not in the Torah, there's no history of it, and I've never heard of any Jewish community that practiced it (maybe some in Africa or the Middle East as a cultural holdover?). Actually, given that it's a mitzvah to have sex with your husband and enjoy it, female circumcision would make that impossible, so I would expect that it wouldn't be permitted by Jewish law.

I'm not going to bother explaining why male and female circumcision are totally different animals, because I expect you already know that and just don't care. I am going to say that Jews have made sure their sons were circumcised in some pretty horrific situations; if we managed to keep up the practice of circumcision in the Warsaw ghetto, I kind of doubt that people pooh-poohing the practice and/or trying to outlaw it is going to do much to stop it. The most secular Jews I know would still circumcise their sons. It's a very deeply felt cultural imperative, and you're not going to get very far in getting people to understand your problems with the practice by doing things like trying to tie it to female genital mutilation (that's not circumcision at all, so I'm not going to legitimize it by calling it that). I'm talking about circumcision here, not meztitzeh b'peh, which I think the vast, vast majority of Jews would find totally gross and inappropriate and would never practice themselves.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Honestly though, I think the knowledge that circumcision for religious reasons has roots in this form raises some good questions about the practice. Why do ultra orthodox Jews practice "Metzitzeh B'peh," while other Jews apparently don't? Also, does it really not cross their minds at all that their rabbi sucking on their infants penis is blatant sexual assault?

As was posted upthread, some people who for religious reasons still think metzitzeh b'peh is required, will use a glass tube to prevent contact. Only certain of the most extreme won't (plenty of people don't hold that it's required now at all).

That SAID, this particular practice always struck me as a good example of when religion goes off the rails. Apparently the original reason for the practice had to do with concern for the health of the babies, back in antiquity, this cleaning of the wound (of a sort, back then) was thought to be a good idea. (I mean, elsewhere in the world people were bleeding out patients, get rid of that bad blood, etc.)

Since then, of course, we've got SCIENCE, yo. And we know that actually, it's NOT a good idea to do this (without the glass tube, anyway). It introduces actual harmful risk.

But some of the very religious, they won't change religious practice to accomodate new secular knowledge. The original reason is long gone, but the practice stays, because that's how it was always done before and those who lived in earlier eras know more than we do, they are closer to the original transmission of religion, so end of story, to say otherwise is dangerous.

Still, before the thread goes completely nuclear, do note that it's quite a minority of people who still insist on this practice (and without the tube, even fewer). Doesn't make it right, but does make it VERY fundie, to the point that even other pretty hard core fundies are thinking WTF.

[fluttershies]

Yeah, I'm not touching this one with a ten-foot pole except to say that I've been to multiple brisses, Orthodox ones, and there was no sucking of anything going on. Ugh. This isn't even an "Orthodox" practice in the sense that all Orthodox Jews do it- it's very fringe, as far as I'm aware, and should be outlawed.

I don't even understand the second question. Female circumcision has never been mandated in any Jewish context, so far as I know. It's not in the Torah, there's no history of it, and I've never heard of any Jewish community that practiced it (maybe some in Africa or the Middle East as a cultural holdover?). Actually, given that it's a mitzvah to have sex with your husband and enjoy it, female circumcision would make that impossible, so I would expect that it wouldn't be permitted by Jewish law.

I'm not going to bother explaining why male and female circumcision are totally different animals, because I expect you already know that and just don't care. I am going to say that Jews have made sure their sons were circumcised in some pretty horrific situations; if we managed to keep up the practice of circumcision in the Warsaw ghetto, I kind of doubt that people pooh-poohing the practice and/or trying to outlaw it is going to do much to stop it. The most secular Jews I know would still circumcise their sons. It's a very deeply felt cultural imperative, and you're not going to get very far in getting people to understand your problems with the practice by doing things like trying to tie it to female genital mutilation (that's not circumcision at all, so I'm not going to legitimize it by calling it that). I'm talking about circumcision here, not meztitzeh b'peh, which I think the vast, vast majority of Jews would find totally gross and inappropriate and would never practice themselves.

QFT

I am not Jewish and not living in the US, it's very unlikely that I would circumcise a male child of mine. However, circumcision isn't the problem here. And I find comparing female genital mutilation to circumcision highly offensive.

[jesusfreak]

What a perfect career it would be for a pedophile to go into.

[valsa]

And I find comparing female genital mutilation to circumcision highly offensive.

Why?

I agree that circumcision isn't the biggest issue in this case. However, I don't see how comparing female genital mutilation to male genital mutilation is offensive. Yes, female mutilation is usually more extensive and severe than male mutilation but I don't see why male mutilation should be excused for that reason. If I had a daughter and cut off her arm, does the severity of that mutilation mean I get a pass if I were to cut off just my son's fingers?

[fluttershies]

Why?

I agree that circumcision isn't the biggest issue in this case. However, I don't see how comparing female genital mutilation to male genital mutilation is offensive. Yes, female mutilation is usually more extensive and severe than male mutilation but I don't see why male mutilation should be excused for that reason. If I had a daughter and cut off her arm, does the severity of that mutilation mean I get a pass if I were to cut off just my son's fingers?

Because it's done for entirely different reasons - FGM is done purposely to prevent sexual pleasure. Male circumcision is done for cleanliness etc. It doesn't prevent men from having sexual pleasure - it may reduce it but it is not even in the same league as FGM.

[PennySycamore]

Thank you, FaustianSlip. You said it so well. Thank you, too, to gardenvarietycitizen!

[meda]

Come on now...comparing the removal of foreskin to FMJ, or the removal of an arm is ridiculous.

[Sinister Rouge]

As was posted upthread, some people who for religious reasons still think metzitzeh b'peh is required, will use a glass tube to prevent contact. Only certain of the most extreme won't (plenty of people don't hold that it's required now at all).

That SAID, this particular practice always struck me as a good example of when religion goes off the rails. Apparently the original reason for the practice had to do with concern for the health of the babies, back in antiquity, this cleaning of the wound (of a sort, back then) was thought to be a good idea. (I mean, elsewhere in the world people were bleeding out patients, get rid of that bad blood, etc.)

Since then, of course, we've got SCIENCE, yo. And we know that actually, it's NOT a good idea to do this (without the glass tube, anyway). It introduces actual harmful risk.

But some of the very religious, they won't change religious practice to accomodate new secular knowledge. The original reason is long gone, but the practice stays, because that's how it was always done before and those who lived in earlier eras know more than we do, they are closer to the original transmission of religion, so end of story, to say otherwise is dangerous.

Still, before the thread goes completely nuclear, do note that it's quite a minority of people who still insist on this practice (and without the tube, even fewer). Doesn't make it right, but does make it VERY fundie, to the point that even other pretty hard core fundies are thinking WTF.

Thanks for this, very informative. Also, didn't mean to offend anybody, just asking questions about something that I, as a non-Jew, find pretty baffling in all its forms. Then when something like this comes up, that's totally out of left field and absolutely not something that seems even remotely reasonable to me, it really helps to learn where it comes from, what these particular insane people are thinking, and the history of the practice.

I do still think that sucking a newborn's bleeding penis is blatant fucking child abuse and that the rabbi should probably be charged with assault, if not manslaughter. And that it's an absolute tragedy and a disgrace that it can be swept under the rug under the guise of "religious freedom". Couldn't the same be said, though, about the Pearls and those who beat their kids to death in the name of God? If they sweep this under the rug, what about all the other systematic child abuse done in the name of God? They should all be rotting in cells for what they do to these poor kids.