E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAn ultra-Orthodox Jewish circumcision practice in which the circumciser places his mouth on a newborn's newly circumcised penis and sucks blood away from the wound carries a risk of transmitting the herpes virus to the baby, sometimes fatally, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The report is based on researchers' investigation into the cases of 11 infants in New York City who were infected with the herpes virus after this procedure, known as metzitzah b’peh ("direct orogenital suction"), between November 2000 and December 2011. Ten of these infants were hospitalized, and two died.
Some of the infants’ parents were not aware this technique would be a part of their child’s circumcision, the researchers found. Parents should be aware of the risk of herpes in metzitzah b’peh, and should inquire in advance whether direct orogenital suction will be performed so the practice can be avoided, the CDC researchers said.
"Oral contact with a newborn’s open wound risks transmission of [ herpes simplex virus ] and other pathogens," the researches wrote in their report. "Circumcision is a surgical procedure that should be performed under sterile conditions."
The virus that was found in most of the infants, called herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) — which is typically associated with cold sores, but does not always cause any symptoms — is highly prevalent in the general adult population, the report said. A 2004 study showed that 73 percent of adults ages 20 and older in New York City carried the virus.
At least three of the infants, including one who died, were circumcised by the same person, the report said. The New York City Commissioner of Health has issued a directive ordering that person to stop performing direct orogenital suction during circumcisions.
At least three mohliem (circumcisers) performed the circumcisions of the 11 infected infants, and there may have been as many as eight mohliem, the CDC said. In some cases, parents refused to identify their child's circumciser to CDC officials.
The rate of newborn boys who undergo direct orogenital suction and contract herpes infections is 24.4 per 100,000, the report said. That's 3.4 times higher than the rate of herpes infections seen in the general newborn male population, which is 8 per 100,000. Other cases of herpes are typically transmitted from mother to infant during delivery.
Neonatal herpes infections is a potentially disabling, life-threatening infection, the report said.
Physicians should counsel parents considering out-of-hospital circumcisions about the risks of direct orogenital suction, and should consider herpes infection when evaluating a newborn male infant with a fever following Jewish ritual circumcision, and inquire about direct orogenital suction, the CDC said.
Mohelim should inform parents about whether they perform direct orogenital suction, and explain the risk of virus transmission, so that parents can choose not to have their newborns exposed, the report said.
Leave a Comment:
www.circumstitions.com/AMA
This site won't let me post the url.
It's www . circumstitions . com / ama / html
Or, do a search for it. You can also visit the AMA site and American Association of Pediatrics, and look for circumcision information.
Eric,
Take a look at what the researched medical community says about penile cancer risk and circumcision. It's obvious that the potential for penile cancer vs. risks associated with circumcision have led them to NOT recommend circumcision in the first place. Also, take note that some of the "guessing" about the connection between some instances of penile cancer and circumcision relate to phimosis and smegma. Again, these are medical conditions that need medical attention when and if they present themselves. Phimosis can be treated, and smegma is simply keeping things clean just like your teeth and ears and finger nails. Having the condition of phimosis can clearly lead to a man not being able to properly clean himself. But, before that smegma can get to such potentially dangerous levels, the issue if phimosis needs to be addressed. So, it's likely not that non-circumcision can lead to penile cancer, but that those men or young males who have phimosis need to seek medical attention when they discover it, well before a potential for cancer becomes a greater threat, this is much like women needing to keep up with self exams and mammograms for the potential of breast cancer. It's certainly suspect to claim that not circumcising a male baby may give him a higher change of developing penile cancer, when there are simple things to be done to avoid it in the first place.
Link:
If it does show, look for www. cancer. org/ cancer/ penilecancer/ detailedguide/ penile-cancer-risk-factors
not true
This is disgusting on so many different levels.
Infants don't remember circumcision, dimwits. Their neurological system isn't developed enough to remember anything-- the surgical procedure or the blood-sucking. From the infant's perspective, it never happened, because there is no perspective when the brain cannot retain any memory of the event. You're trying to "save" babies from something that, as far as the kid is concerned, never happened! Spare us the emotional reasoning for once already!
If a woman is drugged and raped but has no memory of the event, was it a rape? If an infant's finger is cut off but does not retain a memory of the amputation into adulthood, do you think it is permissible to amputate an infant's fingers?
Shandril hasn't said one intelligent thing in this entire thread. Does the baby cry during circumcision? Absolutely. The fact that a baby won't remember it later doesn't make this any less of a form of torture.
A baby is given wine on a piece of gauze to suckle during the religious ritual. They only cry for a minute and then it's over. Believe me, I know because my son had a bris. There was no sucking of blood by the rabbi.
Shandril, if this is okay to do to male babies because 'they won't even remember it' why is it illeagal to do to female babies?
AE, did you know that in this country if you give alcohol to minors it is a punishable crime and if you put your mouth on the genitals of a child it is also a punishable crime, unless of course you say 'God told me to in his book'.
We are governed (supposedly) by secular law, why then can anyone's religion break those laws by claiming it's part of their religion? What if the Roman Catholic Church suddenly said that it is part of their religious belief's to 'fondle' young children? Would you then say 'Oh okay, so that's their right as a religion'?
my oldest didnt cry... my youngest cried for about 30 seconds (but he cried a lot for the first several months)
The issue of female "preference" is opinion, and is based on cultural norms. Most US females are exposed to images of male penis's in circumcised form, even in biology books in middle and high school. That trend is changing as well as there are new books now that show males in the natural state. Later in life, women are exposed to movies and film, usually of the sexual type, that show most males in uncircumcised appearance. Again, that's cultural as most of these movies are produced in the US. But, when women see movies from other parts of the world, they then become exposed to natural state males, and it may look very odd to women who have only been exposed to images of cut men.
Female preference is culturally based and has no relevance to the question of whether or not parents should have their male babies circumcised. Since circumcision has declined markedly in the US over the past few decades, female preference will likely change. As with all things, there will be women who prefer a cut male to a natural male, just as males may have preference for larger breasts or smaller breasts, or bikini wax, or natural. But, that's a decision we all get to make in private as adults.
Shandril, do you know why most babies forget being cut? It's somewhat like many mothers who don't remember the pain of child birth. During excruciating painful events, the brain secretes chemicals to help the person forget. Those chemicals are produced and released in response to the very high levels of pain.
But, what's really the point of your comment? Just because a babies brain chemistry is either to immature, or has protected itself from the injury, that makes it ok to deliver this kind of pain? I guess you'd be that person who presses the button to give maximum shock to the test subject simply because you can't actually see them or their pain. Seems it's ok with you to inflict extreme pain knowing the person will forget and not hold it against you. Well, I would know and I would remember, and thus I couldn't do that to someone. The perceived anonymity of "just following orders" does excuse causing the pain in the first place.
Dimwits indeed.
Good report. Now extend the conclusion to the obvious. Male homosexual sex kills! There is the mouth and the anus! A 50% risk of HIV AIDS and what percentage of herpes? tell us! Marriage between male homosexuals is a death sentence!
Disgusting! I didnt know they sucked blood straight from the cut penis! How does this not qualify as some sort of perverse vampire cult?????????
Shandril
Infants don't remember circumcision, dimwits. Their neurological system isn't developed enough to remember anything-- the surgical procedure or the blood-sucking. From the infant's perspective, it never happened, because there is no perspective when the brain cannot retain any memory of the event. You're trying to "save" babies from something that, as far as the kid is concerned, never happened! Spare us the emotional reasoning for once already!
Umm im sorry but they do in fact possess a pain response, a brain, and memory, and intelligence. You do not even possess basic common logic, let alone intelligence. You are also one of the reasons why these disgusting, brutal, perverse, and pointless rituals are allowed to thrive. I have never understood how it is that anyone could believe that God desires to have innocent children brutally and permanently injured.
eric-2573068
the only problem with that approach is the procedure is more painful and difficult as an adult
This is VERY uncommon
The skin and tissue of infants is extremely sensitive. As we age our tissues become tougher, thus when a child gets older, surgical procedures (this does not qualify as anything other than pointless brutality) are less painful. I am constantly amazed by the seemingly endless number of people who choose to not use their God given intelligence.
wrong!
It just occured to me that circumcision promotes pedophilia, thus this is illegal.
I would say circumcision is about on the level of some man sucking a baby's bloody cock.
I don't think printing this article was a good idea. I've got a feeling the Catholics will have a new "tradition" very soon.
WTF?!
Sick and Stupid like I am beginning to think most religions and their practices are!
Don't forget, it's not just circumcision and Jewish rituals to avoid. If dear old Auntie Alice has a cold sore, keep her away from your kid. Be rude if you have to. If she won't listen, instead of calling it a cold sore, refer to it as "lip herpes". Better that she be offended than that your child has to explain to their future lovers and spouses that they have herpes.
Shandril is typical of the feminists, they claim to be advocates of 'children's rights', but only if those children are GIRLS. When innocent baby boys' genitals are being mutilated, it's an amusing non-issue.
It's amazing the creepy things we do in the name of religion. For all those defending this practice, could you imagine a priest, rabbi, reverend, or other religious figure sucking on an infant girl's clitoris? Simply disgusting and unacceptable. In any other circumstance, the person would have been locked up. The reason this practice still takes place is that the participant can't fight back. We have criminalized other b.s. from the bible, why not this? Stoning adulterers is no longer allowed. I once talked with a jewish woman about circumcision and she said that it's biblically ordained. I told her leviticus also states that menstruating women are unclean and need to be barricated. She replied that it was silly and antiquated! I guess it's antiquated since it's offensive, sexist, and an inconvenience to her. Not many women deciding to follow that religious b.s., are there? Funny how we pick and choose what we want, isn't it?
Before all the B.S. starts rolling in due to the supposed "health benefits," keep in mind that these benefits are dubious and the result of an attempt to justify this practice. One of the more common justifications is UTI reduction. Funny how this is only an issue for male infants, even though male infants suffer incredibly low rates of UTI's while female infants suffer UTI's at 4 to 8 times the frequency. Female adults suffer around 20 times as many UTI's as the adult uncut male. Cancer of the clitoris and labias are more common than penile cancer. Women suffer 100 times as many yeast infections, etc. etc. etc. You get the drift. Ever hear the saying "a problem looking for a solution?"
Im not sure what youre trying to prove with this comparison. Wouldn't the more relevant comparison be circumcised boys to non circumcised boys?
The point is this. It's a hypocrisy. It's fear mongering. Could you imagine if someone did studies showing that women suffered less infactions if they had part of their labias removed? This whole procedure is a cure in search of a disease. A practice seeking justification.
I meant to say "A solution looking for a problem."
If it were another religion's sexually deviant practice- Islam, Hinduism, etc.- it would be labeled child sexual assault by US lawmakers. Disgusting, filthy perversion that cowardly US lawmakers do not address.
Whatever you can say for or against circumcision, this sucking the blood from a circumcision wound is beyond the pale. Perhaps we need a law to criminalize any oral-genital contact between an adult and a child. That should send a powerful message to those who persist with this practice that they should cease and desist.
All Circ is wrong, not just the extreme kind here.
It's wrong if it's
performed medically by a doctor and performing with local anesthesia doesn't
make it right at all. So a million medical circ.s on children a year in this
lousy country is totally wrong too.
It's wrong because the procedure
removes 90% of the tissue that produces the most "voluptuous" sensations, men
here are just unaware! If they'd had the good fortune of being born in Europe,
Russia, China, Japan, South America, that sex would feel so much better. In
return for COMPLETELY EPHEMERAL health benefits.
No, isn't it clear this
is a continuation of the US circ policy from 100 years ago. It was brought to
the US to promote chastity by John Kellogg and others. WWI and military
circomscription played a role.
If you're american male and not familiar,
go look up the foreskin. Its a part that doesn't harbor disease, just because it
has a mucosal inside. your lips are that way. you don't need to remove your lips
and let your gums dry out to guard from gastic disease.
I respect the parents holding their own, but you gotta make the RIGHT decision.
This is very disturbing to me. Who in their right mind would do such a thing, what parent would let this take place? This is disgusting for a man to "suck" on a babies penis after cutting the foreskin off. WOW!
I'm not aware of any restraining order against anyone now by the NYC health commisioner. The man who was "thought" to have infected several in 2006, was, he protested with a lawyer in court and NYC dropped it. Their "directive" isn't anything more than a pamphlet. There are no laws against circumcision in the US on males. Medical professioals can be held to higher standards, but the health department issues no permits to cicrcumcise for non medical reasons, nor does it requre one.
All you need is a hunting knife. There's serveral ways to do it, giving remarkably different effects. You may want test some variations by practicing on a few friends kids. As much as circumcision is held to be such a Jewish religious law, it's actually supposed to be the father. Mehels were for those too squeamism to carry out the law. Male circumcision is quite a strange thing. It's sort of a "not thing" unless something else happens. As long as you are NOT doing it for medical reasons, you can have it your way and perfectly legal. You can do the mouth thing, invite people to watch and have a dinner, accept money in return for doing it. Strangely it's one of the few things you can make money doing and not have to have a permit in NYC or anywhre in the US. All you need is what the doctor does, a consent from the quardians. So I guess who could do this,is who has let it go like this for so long. Now the issue of whether your child may be one of the dead, infected, or maimed by the procedure itself, can disappear. And whether you swallow spit I guess is the question now. Almost like how the horror of the Afghan war was lost when photos of soldiiers urinating on their enemies was considred so bad. So bad that no one even cared that 10 minutes before the photo they were engaged in slaughtering each other any way they could. That brought action and after everyone got through with a urination contest, I"m sure there were laws made against it. But still was ok to blow off their leg and watch them die slowly. Just don't urinate on them afterwards...
That God, what an idiot. If it's suppose to be removed, why put it there in the first place?
If the procedure is done in the hospital, is it free? Otherwise, it sounds like an unnecessary medical procedure done only to make money.