Article Text
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
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The ethics of infant male circumcision
- After Cologne: male circumcision and the law. Parental right, religious liberty or criminal assault
- Female genital alteration: a compromise solution
- Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision
- Male circumcision: risk versus benefit
- Male or female genital cutting: why ‘ health benefits ’ are morally irrelevant
- Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights
- The child 's right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision
- Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe 's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision
- Female genital mutilation