German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault

Circumcision ritual under fire in New York due to risk of herpes infection


New York City health officials are pushing a proposed regulation that would require parents to sign a consent waiver before they take part in a circumcision ritual called "metzitzah b'peh," typically practiced by ultra-Orthodox Jews. The ritual potentially poses a fatal risk to newborns, according to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

The legislation was proposed at a Board of Health meeting last month by Dr. Jay K. Varma, deputy commissioner for disease control for New York City's health department, after 11 infants contracted neonatal herpes between November 2000 and December 2011, after the circumcision ritual. Two of the infants died.
Click to expand...
too bad the babies don't get to sign a waver.

and why aren't the fetus-lovers screaming about child abuse and baby killing here? hmmm?


oh, right, because religion is SOOOOOOO good for you :rolleyes:
 
and why aren't the fetus-lovers screaming about child abuse and baby killing here? hmmm?
Click to expand...

Well, maybe because it actually helps the baby? The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concludes for the first time that, overall, boys will be healthier if circumcised.

So does Johns Hopkins University.

But the cumulative benefits can add up. An analysis published last week by researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, found that the cost of performing circumcisions and treating complications would be tiny in comparison to the savings from the resulting lower rates of HIV, HPV, herpes and urinary tract infections, as well as from lower rates of bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis in women5. Each circumcision that is not performed costs the US health-care system US$313, the researchers estimate.
Click to expand...

Pretty far from senseless mutilation, I'd say.
 
Before our baby was born we were told that to have ours circumcised (in the event that it was a boy, which it wasn't) could be done by only one or two doctors in the entire province. All others refuse the practice.

I still see little reason to circumcise, unless you're in Africa perhaps. The procedure can be done at any age, there's little benefit to doing it at that age.
 
If one believes that a person's trump card of individual rights begin at conception they must be against any form of harm, even if temporary, being done without the individual expressing their personal preference in the matter. Hey but we all know logic doesn't always apply to the religious crowd.

My son didn't get snipped. When asked I told the Dr and Nurse the practice is barbaric which should be outlawed. They didn't ask a 2nd time.
 
If one believes that a person's trump card of individual rights begin at conception they must be against any form of harm, even if temporary, being done without the individual expressing their personal preference in the matter.
Click to expand...

Well, first off, having individual rights beginning at conception makes no sense at all, but I think we're in agreement there.

Second off, though, being against temporary "harm" without their personal preference also makes no sense. That's saying you can't discipline a child. That's also saying that, as a parent, you can't approve of having an operation that will help or improve their life in the long term. At birth, my son had torticollis (we didn't know about this until about 6 months old), which caused mild plagiocephaly that didn't correct itself. At seven months of age, we determined it would be in his best interests to have a therapeutic helmet to help with the correction. Of course, babies hate these sorts of devices. He'd try to remove it every chance he had. Are you trying to say I should have let him choose to have a deformed head?? He *COULD* have chosen to have very risky and painful plastic surgery to correct it later, of course.

Parents need to have the right to be able to make the best decisions for their children. Or is that only when the parents make the best decisions you agree with?
 
@ilwrath,
Rights begin at conception is the conservative Christian position in the USA. And yes it makes no sense.

Though what your proposed over disciplining I'd argue is a choice between immediate harms. If it's more harmful to not discipline than the harm induced to discipline then you should discipline. Even there we have a variety of harm in the type of discipline. I'm sure most would agree that cutting pieces off our kids bodies are not an acceptable type of discipline. Also your kids helmet was a post effect. You don't discipline you child when they're 2 years old because they might not return the car before curfew when they're 17.

Parents need to have the right to be able to make the best decisions for their children. Or is that only when the parents make the best decisions you agree with?
Click to expand...
I, obviously, support parents when they make the best decisions. And unfortunately there are some parents that have made the worst decisions. So there is a limit we as a society have choosen collectively to limit for parents. For example, Metalman and Fade appear to not give parents the right to kill their kids after birth. Seems fairly reasonable. We have other laws such as it's illegal to give your 3 year old over to a sex ring. Likewise it should be illegal for me to decide to augment my child's body. Sure kids can get around without toes. I think the police would come give you a new place to live if you cut healthy toes off your child.
 
Personally I don't really see these studies as justification for circumcision. To me they seem more directed at insurance companies who so far have refused to pay for the procedure. Now parents can point to this and say, see, circumcision can SAVE you money in the long run.

But realistically, I don't think we can use circumcision as a reliable means to prevent most of the problems it's supposed to solve. Even if the rates are less, they are only slightly less. And if we circumcise for this reason alone there's a chance people will take bigger risks with the false belief that they are protected which they clearly are not. It's sorta like how in hockey, the more equipment we force the players to wear the more injuries they get because they play harder, faster, rougher, etc.

The other issue to consider is that there are benefits to NOT being circumcised. Men who have been circumcised later in life report that sex is better pre-snipping. So there certainly is a trade off here and I'm not sure why you'd want to rob your child of the full pleasures his body has to offer.
 
ilwrath said:
Parents need to have the right to be able to make the best decisions for their children. Or is that only when the parents make the best decisions you agree with?
Click to expand...

A parent has the responsibility to raise their child to independence with the least amount of permanent damage possible. Once they are adult (depending on culture) they can make their own choices about what is best for them. If the man the boy becomes reads the literature and finds the case compelling and the cost to benefit worthwhile then he is welcome to get his little fella a trim. since most of the benefit (and cost) is realized as an adult the adult child should be the one making the decision, not the parent.
 
I'm sure most would agree that cutting pieces off our kids bodies are not an acceptable type of discipline.
Click to expand...

Well, the discipline sentence was a bit of a throw-away, and honestly, I probably should have thrown it away. The rest of the paragraph wasn't about discipline, it was about making a medical choice of having a simple procedure now versus letting the child elect to have a more complex procedure later.

But simply going with science and logic here, I'm not sure how you can call circumcision a "worst" decision, other than your own non-agreement with it.
1) There are plenty of hard scientific studies that show circumcision cuts sexually transmitted infection and bacterial infection rates. I linked the most recent one above. I can cite you more, if you'd like...
2) I can't find any scientific studies (please link some if you find them) that show a detriment to sexual function caused by circumcision. Of course, good luck with that one. The American Association of Pediatricians couldn't find any, either.
No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction.
Click to expand...

So, it has a proven upside, and no proven downside, other than the less than 1% risk of it being performed incorrectly. I understand why this procedure shouldn't be mandatory... Yet, you'd still claim this as a "worst" decision that should be banned?
 
The rest of the paragraph wasn't about discipline, it was about making a medical choice of having a simple procedure now versus letting the child elect to have a more complex procedure later.
Click to expand...
Aren't there other body parts we'd be better off without? Athele's Foot likes dark and moist areas. Removing toes would dry out the areas better and have a positive result. The Appendix doesn't do anything but infected and bursting is really bad. No need to answer but something to consider is isn't there other items which may have similar positive effects. Why aren't we doing those ?

Wouldn't it be even more positive if our daughters didn't have sex? They wouldn't get any STDs then. Having a baby carries a 13 deaths per 100K births in the USA. A leading reason for death in young women. If they want a baby they can adopt and experience parenthood. Far safer! Under your logic for boys we should expand female circumcision to the USA.

There are plenty of hard scientific studies that show circumcision cuts sexually transmitted infection and bacterial infection rates.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision Many of these good studies were not US based but African observational. Was the cleanliness of the subjects controlled? What are the outcomes of someone that bathes daily, like we do in the USA, versus someone that doesn't?

So, it has a proven upside, and no proven downside,
Click to expand...
Any cutting carries a risk of infection rates are .2-10% depending on nation and type of survey. 1 in a millon lose their penis. See the link above for more details. And of course there have been STDs passed on from Judiac practices of old geezers sucking off the foreskin with their mouth.

Yet, you'd still claim this as a "worst" decision that should be banned?
Click to expand...
It's a personal violation to decide for someone else that they'd be better off without that body part. Where there is some positives studies I dont' find them overwhelmingly compelling. Also it's something that people can elect to do to themselves when they're an adult. If they so want.

Oh - and so you all know the Drs asked if they should pierce my daughter's ears. I said no, she can choose, to do or not do that when she's old enough. Strange they didn't ask that of my Son. Social sexism? Afterall boys and men wear earings too.
 
Here's the main reason I tend not to take health advice from a trade publication. The profession as a whole is driven by the same underlying motives as the mechanics trade. Shops need to pay rent and service loans. You KNOW that an oil change every 1000km will save you money over time - even if the bastards don't change your oil or your filter when you pay them to.

There are lots of good doctors and lots of good mechanics and we all like to think that we've found them but we don't really know for sure. But imagine what mechanics could get away with if they managed to convince insurers into paying for unnecessary procedures?
 
In New York:
Board Votes to Regulate Circumcision, Citing Risks





the nine-member panel of doctors and public health professionals said that though the regulation had been challenged by some Orthodox Jewish religious authorities as an unconstitutional infringement of their religious freedom, the risk of disease from the ancient procedure was serious enough to warrant action.

Indeed, some panel members said they believed that requiring consent did not go far enough. “It’s crazy that we allow this to go on,” said Dr. Joel A. Forman, a professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
Click to expand...
Infectious disease experts widely agree that the oral contact, known in Hebrew as metzitzah b’peh, creates a risk of transmission of herpes that can be deadly to infants, because of their underdeveloped immune systems. Between 2004 and 2011, the city learned of 11 herpes infections it said were most likely caused by the practice. Two of those babies died; at least two others suffered brain damage.
Click to expand...
 
This brings a couple threads together nicely.

aoGIE.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top