Rabbis claim religious freedom to infect babies with herpes

[Scooter]

Two children are dead, more are injured — yet a group of ultra-Orthodox rabbis say they plan to defy a health order in the name of religious freedom.

Less than a year after a Brooklyn tot died following an ancient circumcision ritual, the rabbis say they will ignore a proposed law that would mandate parental-consent forms before performing the dangerous procedure.

Over the past decade, at least one other newborn died after contracting herpes from the rite, in which the rabbi draws blood from the penis with his mouth.

But ultra-Orthodox leaders are lashing out at the city’s “evil plans” ahead of the Board of Health’s vote next week.

About 200 rabbis signed a proclamation claiming the Health Department “printed and spread lies . . . in order to justify their evil decree.”

“It is clear to us, that there is not even an iota of blame or danger in this ancient and holy custom,” the letter states.

Most modern mohels — men trained to perform religious circumcisions, who are usually rabbis or doctors — remove blood from the baby’s wound using a sterile pipette.

But some Orthodox Jewish parents insist on an ancient “suction by mouth” ritual called metzitzah b’peh.

The city’s law would require mohels to distribute consent waivers, detailing the herpes risk, before the ritual.

Rabbi David Niederman, executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg, said no one will comply with the law, even if it’s passed.

“For the government to force a rabbi who’s practicing a religious act to tell his congregants it’s dangerous is totally unacceptable,” Niederman told The Post.

At least 11 babies in the city have contracted the herpes simplex virus since 2000 — and two developed brain damage and two died, according to a Health Department investigation.

In July, an Orange County infant was hospitalized after contracting a deadly strain of the virus.

Earlier this year, prosecutors were investigating the September 2011 death of a Brooklyn newborn at Maimonides Hospital from Type 1 herpes.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/circ ... z25Kd2zqP7

Absolutely outrageous. Anyone defying the law should be jailed. Any rabbi who causes a child's death in this manner should be tried for murder.

[Lord Jim]

the rabbis say they will ignore a proposed law that would mandate parental-consent forms before performing the dangerous procedure.

Okay, let me get my first reaction to this "procedure" out of the way...


GROSS

That having been said, I'm a little confused....

Is it the case that now that this procedure can be performed in New York without parental consent? How is that even possible?

So they're not even talking about prohibiting this practice...(for which a good argument could be made in my opinion; the free exercise of religion is not absolute)

The Rabbis in this case have the complete wrong end of the stick, (no pun intended) about what the free exercise clause of the 1Amendment is intended to cover....

It's supposed to protect the rights of the individual to decide for themselves (and to a more limited extent for their children; they don't have the right to deny a child life saving medical treatment, for example, though they can refuse it for themselves) what religious practices and rituals they will observe....

NOT to give religious leaders the power to impose those practices or procedures on individuals without their consent....

I completely agree that anyone defying this requirement, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[rubato]

"...

“For the government to force a rabbi who’s practicing a religious act to tell his congregants it’s dangerous is totally unacceptable,” ..."

Unless it is dangerous. Right?




yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

The proposed law will require the parents to give informed consent - to be told what the risks are (i.e. transmission of disease) and to sign a waiver proving that they have been so informed. The problem is that parents are bringing their children to rabbis for this practice without being informed of the risks.

[Lord Jim]

Yes, I see that now...

(It was my bad, I didn't read the article closely enough the first time.)

It still seems to me that the health risk outweighs the right of the Rabbis to conceal the dangers involve....

I wonder how much of the resistance may come not so much from having to disclose the health risk per se, as it comes from the embarrassing nature (for the Rabbis) of the health risk .... (Obviously this wouldn't be an issue if there weren't Orthodox Rabbis in New York with Herpes)

Well that's just too damn bad....

If I were running a religion that had a rite that required the church members to walk through a door, and oh by the way, every now and then on the other side of this door there would be a hungry tiger, I suspect I could be required to reveal that without my religious liberties being Constitutionally impinged.

[Scooter]

I wonder how much of the resistance may come not so much from having to disclose the health risk per se, as it comes from the embarrassing nature (for the Rabbis) of the health risk

That's probably true...plus, the rabbi who spoke out against it said outright that it would have a "chilling impact" on parents who want this ritual performed. Well no shit, Sherlock, and well it should.

[Lord Jim]

That's probably true...plus, the rabbi who spoke out against it said outright that it would have a "chilling impact" on parents who want this ritual performed.

That attitude reminds me of the old Monty Python routine with the candy manufacturer who's selling boxes of chocolates with ingredients like "lark's vomit" and steel bolts that pop out of the candy and burst through your cheeks...

When the inspector tells him he should put that information on the box package, the candy company owner says something like, "We can't do that! It would have a devastating effect on sales!"...

[Crackpot]

It seems to me if they were really Orthodox they'd be considering themselves unclean.

[Sue U]

Anyone defying the law should be jailed. Any rabbi who causes a child's death in this manner should be tried for murder.

I agree with Scooter. And if they can't get them for depraved indifference murder, then they should go for negligent homicide.

The bizarre practice at issue in this case is limited to a very small minority of kooks and should be outlawed by both secular and religious law.

[Grim Reaper]

The state of Berlin in Germany has decided that circumsisions are legal, but they can only be performed by a doctor and the parents have to be appraised of the potential risks.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It's all a clear case of mohelestation

[dgs49]

While my wife was in labor with my (only) son, one of the obstetricians came in to talk, and when the subject of circumcision came up, he gave us a 10 minute lecture on why he strongly encouraged infant circumcision for, basically, reasons relating to hygiene.

A few hours later his partner came in to the birthing room and with a little prompting from me, opined that circumcision was an unforgivable form of cruelty and child abuse, and ought to be outlawed.

Clearly, opinions on the procedure differ.

To quote an old Jewish query: "What could it hurt?"