.
Feedback

Opinion: Consent for Circumcision

Dena S. Davis, professor of bioethics at Lehigh University, believes a circumcision practice used by ultra-Orthodox Jews is wrong

The debate on circumcision is heating up again. After being criminalized in the Cologne Regional Court of Germany, the first violation resulted in a recent charge against the traditional Jewish practitioner. Other countries such as Denmark are calling into question if this practice violates health codes.

In New York City, concern has focused on a practice used only by ultra-Orthodox Jews: metzitzah b’peh.  This involves direct oral suction of the circumcision wound, and has recently been implicated in the death of two infants who were infected by herpes.  Concern over herpes infection has pushed New York City health officials to pass a regulation requiring parents to provide signed informed consent before allowing their child to take part in metzitzah b’peh.

Dena S. Davis, professor of bioethics at Lehigh University, believes insistence on metzitzah b’peh is wrong. In an opinion piece she wrote for Bioethics Forum, a service of The Hastings Center, Davis outlined the latest political occurrences and medical ethical implications regarding male newborn circumcision. Davis believes that informed consent is an inadequate approach to the issue.

“If oral suction puts infants at unreasonable risk of death, it ought explicitly to be made illegal (in fact, one could argue that it already is illegal and could be prosecuted as negligent homicide or child endangerment),” she said. Also unreasonable, she said: the fact that traditional Jewish circumcision "can legally be performed by anybody, and has absolutely no regulation" in a state that regulates who may shampoo a person’s hair.

Gerry Kranz September 22, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Here is the problem, Dena. You "believe" it is wrong, and the UltraOrthodox Jews "believe" it is right. As a professor of such a soft science like ethics and philosophy, you should know that you cannot debate a belief.
Jolly Roger September 22, 2012 at 03:52 pm
funny a woman wrote this opinion, maybe she doesnt like they look
marlene burkey September 22, 2012 at 06:02 pm
i agree with her.
QED September 23, 2012 at 01:11 am
There might be a method to eliminate the hazards other than banning the practice. Perhaps testing participants for HIV and other hazards of infection would be one way of eliminating risk.
Sarah Nicklin September 23, 2012 at 02:02 am
Cutting off the end of a penis without the consent of the male to whom the penis belongs seems wrong to me in any circumstance. Performing cosmetic surgery on the genitals of newborns is one of the more bizarre rituals of our culture. One day Americans will look back in wonder at the barbarism of the practice.
Hugh7 September 23, 2012 at 10:12 am
That is why we have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees security of the person. Cutting off (healthy, normal, functional, non-renewable) parts of anyone's genitals without their consent violates that right. If you think religion gives anyone the colour of right, would that also extend to, say, cutting off their earlobes? Or is out of sight out of mind?
Jonathan Gerard September 24, 2012 at 01:04 pm
"Metzitzah b'peh" (literally, "sucking by mouth") is a medieval method for cleaning the circumcision wound. Ms. Davis is correct to say that it is wrong. This is not a religious opinion; it is a medical fact. The original and still valid goal was to promote cleanliness and health and today we know much better ways to achieve that goal (thank God!) and we must use them.
Regarding the issue of circumcision in general--beyond it's Biblical source as a sign of the Covenant between God and the Jewish people--I wonder what women think. Let us know: do you prefer a circumcised penis or an uncircumcised one? And is it just what you are used to or is there some other reason for your preference? It is easy to speak of the "barbarity" of the practice. But it may be seen as akin to piercing an infant's ears. I know of no men who, as adults, regret being circumcised or women who later regret that their parents pierced their infant ears. (Surely some such people exist.) But considering it solely as a cosmetic issue, what do women prefer?
Carol September 24, 2012 at 01:57 pm
The discussion of the religious, medical, and ethical issues about the practice is appropriate. A discussion of "preferences" devalues the discussion to one that of a sensationalizing tabloid. Is that Patch wants to be?
Jonathan Gerard September 25, 2012 at 04:54 am
I did not mean to sensationalize the issue. I meant to point out that there are more reasons than religious or medical that motivate parents to circumcise their sons. I apologize for misleading readers.
Daxton September 25, 2012 at 05:16 pm
Looking at this from a medical safety standpoint, she is completely correct. This 'method' would subject the child to un-reasonable levels of risk. She did not say that circumcision is bad or that it should be stopped just noting that safety should be the main concern. I personally think this should be up to the family as well as they are well aware of the consequences of this practice.
Jacob Bah September 25, 2012 at 07:15 pm
In my opinion, all forms of male circumcision are a relic from the age when humans relied upon religion for answers to the mysteries that surrounded them, and also a time when religion held ultimate power. Today we have laws and science and yet this barbaric practice continues as a cultural norm. No infant should have that irrevociable choice made for him by someone else. If circumcision's religious practice is so important, why not allow the boy to make the decision when he becomes a man. Isnt that a central component of all faiths? To make a choice for youself about your beliefs? Or are we condoning the thrusting of parental religious beliefs upon the child who has no recourse, let alone voice, in the matter?

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Bethlehem Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
An interested bystander May 6, 2013 at 05:29 pm
Just pointing out facts. You are also forgetting that money withdrawn from an IRA or 401k (exceptRead More Roth IRAs) are taxed at withdrawal. I prefer my government not punish good financial actions. Sorry it's a quirk of mine, I think we should reward those who make good decisions, not punish them.
Tony Simek May 6, 2013 at 06:35 pm
I agree with you Interested Bystander. Problem is that if you punish the ones making the badRead More decisions, the Federal government will be punished all the time. In the current climate, poor decision making gets rewarded by voters. The middle class doesn't have a chance.
Bill May 9, 2013 at 05:11 am
Naziti and Caroline Johnson so sorry to take so long to get back to you from your comments onRead More Sunday, May 5th, I didn't think I would have to respond. I re-posted Ken's comment because the REAL issue is "AARP selling out it's faithful supporters for BIG MONEY. So let me break it down so even the Soros trolls understand. ObamaCare guts SS and medicare reserve money by 750 Billion. Which ends these programs as we know them. AARP publicly backs ObamaCare. Seniors confused about OCare but trust AARP and their massive ad campaign for OCare. AARP contributes to re-election AARP becomes insurance provided for OCare. Unleashes host of insurance options that Seniors will be needing to make decisions about in next 2-3 years. Complicate the choices for Seniors so they fall back on who they have trusted in the past. Still unaware of the great deception perpetrated by AARP. OCARE fully enacted 2014. AARP gets steady $$$ insurance income now (not $16 membership fees for whoever posted that line above). SS and MediCare bankrupt (3/4 trillion $ stolen to fund OCare) Result for SENIORS. NO SS or MEDicare it's dissolved or becomes something less. Free OCare that sucks. Pay AARP for supplemental Ins. Prescriptions too expensive to purchase so go without or pay AARP for better plan. AARP richer and more powerful represents Gvmt Seniors - Self rule lost You see they screwed the very people that paid dues for their protection!