Article Text
Current controversies
Ancient rites and new laws: how should we regulate religious circumcision of minors?
Abstract
The ancient practice of metzitzah b'peh, direct oral suction, is still practiced by ultra-Orthodox Jews as part of the religious rite of male newborn circumcision. Between 2000 and 2011, 11 children have died in New York and New Jersey, following infection by herpes simplex virus, presumably from infected practitioners. The City responded by requiring signed parental consent before oral suction, with parents being warned of the dangers of the practice. This essay argues that informed consent is not an appropriate response to this problem. An outright ban would a better response to a practice that is dangerous to children, but might prove unconstitutional under New York State law.
- Circumcision
- Newborns and Minors
- Paediatrics
- Public Health Ethics
- Religious Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation
- Female genital alteration: a compromise solution
- After Cologne: male circumcision and the law. Parental right, religious liberty or criminal assault?
- A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors
- Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant
- Religious circumcision and the Human Rights Act
- Ultra-Orthodox Jews criticised over circumcision practice
- Circumcision in boys and girls: why the double standard?
- The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors
- Female genital mutilation: what every paediatrician should know