COLUMN: Religious practices are not all ethical
In September 2011, a two-week-old baby boy unnecessarily died. The cause of death: Disseminated Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1, complicating ritual circumcision with oral suction. The Orthodox Jewish circumcision process called “metzitzah b’peh” is otherwise known as “oral suction,” or the suctioning of blood from the circumcision wound directly by mouth.
Unfortunately, last year isn’t the first time that this particular rabbi, Yitzchok Fischer, caused the death of a child. The same thing happened in 2004, and that same year three other babies were determined to have contracted herpes from Fischer. While Herpes Simplex Virus 1 is usually harmless in adults and manifests itself only as uncomfortable cold sores, because of the virus’ association with the nervous system, it poses significant health threats to newborns and can result in brain damage, and sometimes, death.
The practice of circumcision is condoned in the Bible and believed by several religious denominations to be one of the most important rituals performed during an individual’s lifetime. But outside of a religious context, oral-penile contact from an adult man to a child is considered pedophilia and is punishable by law.
Because the contact in question occurred within a religious context, Fischer has not been held accountable for the death of the baby boys.
Jerry Schmetterer, the spokesman for Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes, told The Jewish Week that, “Our Crimes Against Children Bureau is looking into this situation. I would not assume what any possible charges would be.”
I can think of a few possible charges, Mr. Hynes. How about two counts of criminal homicide? Several counts of child molestation? Tortious transmission of an STD by intentional neglect? The behavior of this priest is abominable to any right-minded person, but according to The Jewish Week, the city only filed a legal complaint against Fischer to compel him to stop engaging in the practice after the death of the first baby. Clearly, he did not comply, but instead of being legally prosecuted, the matter was ultimately referred by the city to a “beit din” – a religious tribunal – for review.
In his book “God is Not Great,” Christopher Hitchens writes about circumcision in connection to religion: “Full excision … is now exposed for what it is – a mutilation of a powerless infant … And who can bear to read the medical textbooks and histories which calmly record the number of boy babies who died from infection after their eighth day … The record of syphilitic and other infection, from rotting rabbinical teeth or other rabbinical indiscretions … is simply dreadful.”
The alteration of an individual’s body without informed consent is dreadful. It is interesting to note that in third-world countries the circumcision, or genital mutilation of young females, is viewed as an abhorrent attack on human rights and informed consent. In the U.S., before 2006, more than half the population of young males were being circumcised.
Fortunately, the practice of circumcision has plummeted in popularity in the last few years. A study by the Control for Disease Center in 2010 found that from 2006 to 2009, the rate of circumcision dropped from 56 percent to 32.4 percent. There are groups called “intactivists,” who promote legislation that prohibits the practice of circumcision altogether.
Some modern proponents of male circumcision claim that the removal of the foreskin reduces an infant’s chances of incurring urinary tract infections and aids in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases later in life. However, according to Kidshealth.org, less than one percent of non-circumcised males will contract a UTI, making this concern negligible.
I don’t know any sentient man who would willingly submit to significant changes in that area of their body; wouldn’t it be better, then, to let mature men make the decision to alter their genitalia once they actually understand what is going on? If the health benefits of circumcision are significant enough then men will seek the surgery on their own later in life.
As it stands, infant circumcision is unethical – whether it is to a male or female for religious or secular reasons. Yitzchok Fischer should be held legally accountable for the deaths of two infants, rather than being deferred to a religious council that will, in effect, do nothing to prevent this tragedy from happening again.
Lastly, religious and non-religious parents alike who are about whether or not their child needs to be circumcised should reflect on whether the alteration of an infant’s genitalia is ethically justifiable. To any honest individual, I believe the answer is a resounding no. Too bad New York’s DA doesn’t agree.
– Liz Emery is a senior majoring in English with a creative writing emphasis. Her column is published every other Wednesday. Comments on her column can be sent to liz.emery@yah
oo.com