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

[2xx1xy1JD]

Infibulation is incredibly rare. The most common form of FGM is the removal of the prepuce aka FORESKIN (more commonly called the clitoral hood). The exact same tissue is removed and the removal for most girls is done with anesthetic (something over 95% of baby boys aren't lucky enough to get) in sterile conditions. So yes, male circumcision can easily be compared to the most common forms of FGM. But even a prick with a needle is illegal if it's to a girl, but this is legal to do to baby boys. (warning, very graphic) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... sion&hl=en and this is what is lost http://www.norm.org/lost.html

And for those who say it's different because male circumcision is for cleanliness....you really don't know your history, do you? The main reason for circumcision of girls & boys in North America was it was believed it would prevent masturbation. In countries where circumcision of boys is rare or unheard of, there isn't an epidemic of "unclean" men. And "having to be circumcised" happens to less than 0.5% of men.

ETA I'm curious what those who say Jewish people will never give up circumcision think of jewsagainstcircumcision.org?

Actually, it's not that "incredibly rare".

The Canadian assault laws were amended in the 1990s to specifically ban FGM. I was part of the legal committee of a major Jewish organization at the time, and the briefing notes for the proposed amendment specifically mentioned the risk of the most severe forms of FGM (and after seeing those notes, we voted to support the proposed law). At that time, there was a huge influx of Somali refugees into Canada, and over 90% of Somali girls are subject to the most severe form of FGM which includes infibulation. In plain English, around 120,000 Somalis had suddenly arrived in Canada, where there was almost no pre-existing Somali community to help them adjust to life in Canada, and that meant that 60,000 girls and women had either undergone a severe form of FGM or were at risk of undergoing it.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Re the main topic:

It's only the ultra-Orthodox who do this particular procedure, and it's something that takes less than a second. Keep in mind that the whole bris is done in front of an audience. It's not something that anyone is doing for kicks.

That said, there is a huge issue wrt safety issues, since this problem had occurred previously. There's an even bigger issue with government relations with certain communities. Some of the most insular communities have a degree of paranoia when it comes to any government involvement, even when it comes to public safety, and they also lack secular knowledge to deal intelligently with this particular issue. Even more troubling is the fact that public officials didn't take a more active role. Stopping someone with a communicable disease from doing this isn't a violation of religious rights.

[MonkeyMomma]

However, that is some Typhoid Mary shit, and they need to keep that Rabbi from infecting small children! I also agree that it's fucked up to think that sucking on a small child's penis is ok as long as a bunch of people are watching, and it's religious. WTF?

This, this, this! I'll come back if I want to wade into the larger conversation, but the city REALLY dropped the ball by dropping the restraining order and referring it to religious courts. This case is a public health issue, and someone who at this point KNOWS he has herpes blithely ignoring universal precautions when it comes to bodily fluids and infants needs to be stopped.

[valsa]

It seems a lot of people here (or at least the most vocal ones) are absolutely anti-spanking. (There's no real difference between spanking once a month and daily beatings, occasional spanking is abuse, etc.) One comparison that often comes up is "If your husband hit you when you did something he didn't like, would it be okay?" The comparison to time-out that sometimes comes up as rebuttal seems to usually be ignored. Why shouldn't it be ignored here?

I can't tell if I'm misinterpreting what I see (on the surface of these discussions) for what is there. Are there a lot of anti-circumcision people here who stay silent and edge away when the topic comes up, but more vocal anti-corporal-punishment people? Or are there really a large number of people who are against smacking (to the point that they'll argue against it), but okay with circumcision?

This is an interesting point. Most people here, myself included, seem to not be okay with any hitting of a child (even a "light swat", as has been discussed in another thread) Yet people are okay with some mutilation* of a child's genitals, as long as it's not as bad as other types of genital mutilation. If a “light swat†doesn’t get a pass, neither should a "light mutilation".

* Since there seems to be some argument about whether male circumcision is mutilation, I'm going by Merriam-Webster's definition: "to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect" and "to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of".

[meda]

Just to wade in on the whole "NYS dropped the ball" thing... New York city is sort of like a state within a state when comes to health laws and most other municipal laws. In this case, Mayor Bloomburg dropped the ball, probably because of pressure from the large ultra Orthodox community. Outside of NYC and probably Rockland county, this would have been prosecuted at least as a health code violation.

Stepping away from the circ debate...I get that it's apparently been aproblem for some men, I just don't think it compares to FMJ.

[Conuly]

I realize this might be unpopular, especially because of my personal feelings re circ. but it is true, lives are saved by it, women's lives too!

And can you find a study that actually shows that? Because to date, even the most pushy pro-circumcision studies have shown, at best, only a tiny decrease in infection rates (and those are all contradicted by other studies which show no correlation). Education and availability of condoms is more effective and with less risk.

[Beeks]

So this is only about 1/4th on topic but this thread made me wonder. Obviously I think what the rabbi did was sick and he should be prosecuted for both sexual abuse and some type of homicide, but I never really thought about herpes (the cold sore variety) being dangerous to babies. My husband gets cold sores and we were never asked about it or instructed to have him not touch/kiss our babies. He never would if he were having an actual outbreak, but it can be transmitted any time (though it's more likely during an outbreak). Are parents routinely instructed not to kiss newborn babies if they are carriers of the herpes virus? Or is it only if you're having an outbreak? I googled around a bit and didn't find anything definitive.

[Conuly]

Were you generally kissing your baby on open wounds? That may be the difference here.

[Beeks]

Were you generally kissing your baby on open wounds? That may be the difference here.

No and that's not what I'm asking. I'm not trying to relate it to what the rabbi did - the case from the OP seems obvious (this is why I said it's barely on topic). Should not have happened and rabbi should be prosecuted. The case just made me go "yikes" because I'd never considered that the herpes virus could actually kill a newborn. What I'm wondering is whether it's always dangerous to kiss a baby if one has the oral herpes virus/cold sores, regardless of whether one is having an outbreak. It can be spread even when you're not having an outbreak and it can be spread without touching open wounds. It just makes me nervous thinking that we have two babies and we never even thought of this.

edited for clarity

[longskirts]

You can transmit the virus to a newborn if you've ever had a cold sore. It can be active even if you don't currently have visible signs of a outbreak.

Of course, most of the time parents don't actually transmit herpes to their kids, just like babies usually don't get sick after circumcision. But the possibility is there.

[treemom]

No, I was not talking about a policy if routine circ. I was saying I personally would have done it. You are fighting the wrong person here..and I am not about to get myself embroiled in this debate. I was responding the the fact that it is saving lives from HIV and factually incorrect info re condoms.

[treemom]

And because someone asked about the studies...the CDC has a page that discusses them

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsh ... cision.htm

I am not going to get into omg debate here. I (despite being a secular Jew) chose not to do it when my son was born. However, if I were in a different culture or situation, I would.

[pomology]

However, that is some Typhoid Mary shit, and they need to keep that Rabbi from infecting small children! I also agree that it's fucked up to think that sucking on a small child's penis is ok as long as a bunch of people are watching, and it's religious. WTF?[/

I think that is something that pretty much everyone on this thread pro or anti circumcision, Jew or gentile, can agree with. It is completely revolting and I cringe just thinking about it.

[Witsec1]

I've had TWO boyfriends who've suffered lifelong injuries from their circumcisions.

I know the OP was tragic and enraging, and I know circ/no circ is A Very Serious Topic, but this made me laugh quite a lot. Elle must be surrounded by a force field where laws of statistical probability cannot operate.

[treemom]

I know the OP was tragic and enraging, and I know circ/no circ is A Very Serious Topic, but this made me laugh quite a lot. Elle must be surrounded by a force field where laws of statistical probability cannot operate.

I heart you.

[Cerysbell]

So this is only about 1/4th on topic but this thread made me wonder. Obviously I think what the rabbi did was sick and he should be prosecuted for both sexual abuse and some type of homicide, but I never really thought about herpes (the cold sore variety) being dangerous to babies. My husband gets cold sores and we were never asked about it or instructed to have him not touch/kiss our babies. He never would if he were having an actual outbreak, but it can be transmitted any time (though it's more likely during an outbreak). Are parents routinely instructed not to kiss newborn babies if they are carriers of the herpes virus? Or is it only if you're having an outbreak? I googled around a bit and didn't find anything definitive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ction.html

This case made headlines in the UK a while back and there is some advice from a MW at the end.

[Sinister Rouge]

And condoms can't prevent all stds.

But circumcision does?

It prevents certain STD's better than comprehensive safe-sex education would? My overall point that it's pretty fucked up to remove a healthy functioning part of an unconsenting newborn rather than ensuring they receive a thorough education on responsible sexual practices when they're old enough for it to be neccessary still stands. It's a pretty shitty excuse in first-world 2012. In this case, and apparently in numerous others, circumcision has caused STDs and death in infants who would have probably gone on to have long, healthy intact lives had their parents not subjected them to an elective surgery.

[Mama Mia]

Wow ! Am I the only one who didn't know that herpes can be fatal ???? :shock: I had no idea.

On the circumcision debate - I know I must be another one who operates outside a forcefield of statistical probabilities - this would actual explain quite a bit in my life :o )

In my family I have two horror stories regarding men who weren't circumcised as infants, so in our family we circumcised our boys - this was over 20 years ago and at the time I recall there being studies regarding increased risk of infection and cervical cancer for women who were the partners of uncircumcised men. I don't know if those studies were later validated ?

[formergothardite]

I know the OP was tragic and enraging, and I know circ/no circ is A Very Serious Topic, but this made me laugh quite a lot. Elle must be surrounded by a force field where laws of statistical probability cannot operate.

I know! :lol: Someone should compile a list of all the Very Crazy Things that happen to people Elle knows.

I have no clue about the status of anyone in my life's (except my husband) penis. It just isn't something we discuss.

[treemom]

But circumcision does?

It prevents certain STD's better than comprehensive safe-sex education would? My overall point that it's pretty fucked up to remove a healthy functioning part of an unconsenting newborn rather than ensuring they receive a thorough education on responsible sexual practices when they're old enough for it to be neccessary still stands. It's a pretty shitty excuse in first-world 2012. In this case, and apparently in numerous others, circumcision has caused STDs and death in infants who would have probably gone on to have long, healthy intact lives had their parents not subjected them to an elective surgery.

No. But I wasn't arguing that, I was correcting your factually incorrect statement.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Penile cancer is extremely rare, about 800 cases of penile carcinoma a year. Breast cancer is common. An estimate 1 in 6 to 1 in 8 women, plus men who aren't in that count. So how about we start removing breast tissue from our infant daughters to prevent the chance of breast cancer? You know as well as I do that that would cause an uproar. So the argument that circling appears to reduce the risk of a rare cancer somewhat isn't a valid argument.

Over 100 babies a year die from circumcision, with more cases believed to be likely since not every baby who dies from a cause related to circumcision will be reported as having died from it. Every single one of these deaths is avoidable because circumcision, except for a rare case with medical need, is elective. Why does no one this this is important? Yet how many people think it's child abuse to not vaccinate child in America against Polio, despite the FACT that it is eradicated in EVERY first world country? And parents do it because of the nearly non-existent chance that someone from one of the THREE countries with reported polio cases over the last year decides to travel to America and actually has polio. Why are people more concerned about polio than about baby boys who die on average one every three days?

Back to penile cancer. It isn't a guaranteed killer. Not by a long shot. Many go into remission, some lose their penises (guess what - it happens to baby boys too), and some die (as already stated, so do baby boys). The benefit in no way outweighs the risks. And even if it did, the removal of a body part preemptively needs to be the decision of the person whose body it is, especially when the cancer is so rare few people even realize it exists until someone brings it up.

Elle - what is your source for the 100+ dead baby figure? Did it come from the pseudo-scientific study published in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies?

If so, the article itself made it clear that this figure was an ESTIMATE, rather than something based on actual data. There is no evidence that Dan Bollinger, author of the article, has any qualifications that would allow him to make an accurate estimate. His profile at Intact America makes it clear that he is an activist, but mentions nothing about actual scientific qualifications (http://www.intactamerica.org/danbollinger) His LinkedIn profile says under Education that he only received a BA in Industrial Design (http://www.linkedin.com/in/danbollinger). Thymos is not a scientific journal. It focused on "men's studies" and its review board comes from a wide variety of backgrounds, including film.

Bottom line: it's junk science from an unqualified activist who figured that it would get press.

[treemom]

I know! :lol: Someone should compile a list of all the Very Crazy Things that happen to people Elle knows.

I have no clue about the status of anyone in my life's (except my husband) penis. It just isn't something we discuss.

I only know because I was heavily conflicted about it when my son was born and some girlfriends shared their husband's foreskin status. I in generally believe my son is of the age that talking about his penis on the Internet is inappropriate, even though I just did.

Personally this seems to be going the way of the peanut butter thread....

[J-Watcher]

How would they know any different in order to compare? If someone from the planet Zorg asked me if I minded having only 5 fingers instead of 6 like them, how could I know? The issue I have with it is that the child is unable to consent to cosmetic surgery that is probably detrimental to their sexual pleasure/function (I think I'll side with science here and assume that losing 20,000 nerve endings makes a difference). That's tangential, though, to the issue that this newborn died - DIED - from a process that had a mohel sucking on his bleeding penis and giving him an infection, and apparently that's A-Okay with the State of New York... In. Sane.

Actually if you google around a bit, you'll find sites with detailed testimonials from men who've chosen circumcision for nonmedical reasons as adults. They're pretty happy with the before and after comparison of their sexual pleasure, but most would prefer to have had it done when they were infants, because it's more painful and has a longer healing time when done on an adult man (not to mention the awkward interruption in their sex life and awkward stares when using public urinals).

The NYC Health Department tried to prohibit this dangerous ultra-orthodox Jewish twist on circumcision several years ago, when 3 babies were infected by the same mohel (one died and one suffered permanent brain damage), but the ultra-orthodox howled that they wouldn't tolerate any infringement on their religious freedom, and several politicians who were up for election (including Mayor Bloomberg) ended up buying their votes by siding with them. As I mentioned in a previous post, this particular sect is prone to violence and rioting, even between their own feuding factions. Nobody really wants to risk pissing them off, and in this particular case, I don't think anybody really believes they'd stop the practice if it was declared illegal -- more likely they'd protect the community/cult by not taking recently circumcised infants to a hospital when they show signs of this type of illness, so more babies would end up dying if it was made illegal. Dealing with religious fanatics is never easy . . .

[eohiken]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez

This is the original Douglas Gairdner study from 1949 that ended routine circumcision in England. He found that an average of 16 infants per year had died as a result from complications from their circumcisions, which works out to be 1 per 6000 procedures. Doctors in the Uk and Wales immediately stopped offering circ to all infant males and the rate dropped to nearly nothing.

[Sinister Rouge]

Actually if you google around a bit, you'll find sites with detailed testimonials from men who've chosen circumcision for nonmedical reasons as adults. They're pretty happy with the before and after comparison of their sexual pleasure, but most would prefer to have had it done when they were infants, because it's more painful and has a longer healing time when done on an adult man (not to mention the awkward interruption in their sex life and awkward stares when using public urinals)

True, but there is also the opposite - thousands of men who feel shame and remorse because they were circumcised, some to the point where they begin the years-long process of foreskin restoration. It's becoming so common that there's a growing industry for restoration devices such as the TLC Tugger.

I don't doubt that circumcision as an adult is very painful (as it is for infants), but at least they were able to choose whether or not to have it done. The same can't be said of anyone circumcised as an infant.