A consent form has no value when the rebbe decries its perceived threats to circumcision from his pulpit, and prohibits the parents from signing it. Furthermore, mohels are venerated and treated as pure and pious. So what is the solution to this? Does the government have the power to influence unimpressionable Hasidic rabbis? Does the government even have a right to interfere, or is this a matter of religious freedom and autonomy? I do not know all the answers, but banning MBP is not one of them.
Neither is mandatory consent forms. Only education, and perhaps putting pressure on the leaders, will work. Home Share Search. Email Facebook Twitter. Give Podcast Subscribe.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Email. Agudath Israel, an organization representing ultra-Orthodox Jews, has reacted with intransigence, claiming that the state health departments cannot prove that the babies were infected by mohels without a DNA comparison of the virus. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has handled this issue with kid gloves, trying to work with the ultra-Orthodox community but refraining from directly confronting them by pursuing legal remedies.
Sporadic attempts at investigation, e. According to The Jewish Week, the mother of the baby who died last year has refused to cooperate with an investigation and has stated that should she give birth to another son, she would use the same mohel.
On September 13, the New York City Board of Health will vote on whether to implement a plan to require signed parental consent before the procedure is undertaken. Knowing the risks posed by direct oral suction, a parent or legal guardian can then make an informed choice about whether it should be performed as part of the circumcision. It is not clear how the affected community will react. Some rabbis have noted that signing the form does not impinge on the religious ritual; others have promised civil disobedience, regarding a required consent form as the beginning of a slippery slope toward criminalization of all religious circumcision.
It is clear to us that there is not even an iota of blame or danger in this ancient and holy custom. From both a legal and ethical perspective, informed consent is the wrong path to take here. First, parents can give permission , but not consent. 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.
In fact, ritual circumcision occupies a very strange place in American law and life, and is difficult to define. This is extraordinary deference to the religious practice of one set of Americans. Contrast this with the federal law prohibiting a tiny nick on the genitals of a female minor, even when performed by a physician in sterile conditions in the absence of a medical reason , and which specifically bars giving any weight to religious motivation.
The ultra-Orthodox argue that any regulation of this practice impinges on their religious freedom. In this they are correct. But religious freedom is not automatically a winning argument. It must be balanced against other state interests, among which the protection of children is paramount. As the U. Supreme Court said in in Prince v. The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death.
Dena S. The opinions expressed here are those of the authors, not The Hastings Center. Visit safebris. The Jewish Week is always here for you. We need your support now. Your contribution will help us bring you vital news and frequent updates about the impact of COVID Instruments used in the Jewish circumcision ceremony lie on a table prior to the circumcision of baby.
Getty Images.
0コメント