Chaptzem Blog!      

To snip or not to snip?

As if New York does not have enough problems, there arises yet another kerfuffle over the un-orthodox manner in which Orthodox Jews in New York are performing “do it yourself circumcisions.” Albeit a Jewish tradition, sanctioned, it is claimed, by Abraham, there are outcries from some in the big apple that the procedure is barbaric, excruciatingly painful and well, just, plain cruelty to children. I hesitate in this family oriented daily to describe the in-house procedure, except to say that a proper circumcision by licensed professionals is a mere bagatelle compared to the ritualistic removing of excess manhood from a new born. The Mayor of New York finds himself in the untenable position of protecting freedom of religion on the one hand and quelling the demands for criminal prosecution on the other.
For at least a century medical professionals and scientists have endorsed the biblical ritual of circumcision and other doctors and scientists have boo-hooed equally hard against the practice as barbaric. Even though recent (cursory) studies indicate that circumcision reduces the incidents of aids by contact, the war over its medical utility rages on. Cultural Anthropologist Leonard Glick has devoted much of his life to this subject and has published scholarly works on the procedure. He writes with deference about those who practice this ritual while also establishing, in painful descriptions, how the health benefit is often over-stated (marginal actually). The procedure, according to Glick, is not only extremely painful, it is irreversible and the newborn child cannot consent. Glick cites the 12th century Jewish physician and Philosopher Moses Maimonides who wrote “If at birth a member is taken away, made to bleed and lost forever, it indubitably weakens the person so deprived.”
In today’s society there are some who believe that attacking circumcision (for any reason) is tantamount to attacking Judaism. Jews take their argument for the procedure to a higher level by postulating that the Abraham-style (not described above) circumcision points up the dichotomy of Jewish religious ritual and Christian hypocrisy. As this schism widened between Jews and Christians, 19th century doctors began to notice that Jewish male patients had less occurrence of venereal disease and quickly attributed this finding to the “snip.” Non-Jewish physicians also got behind circumcisions, though performed them in hospitals and not by Mohels, a lay Jew ordained to perform the ritual in the Abraham-style, (not described above). By 1910 more than a third of all male babies in the U.S. were circumcised. By 1940, 60 percent were snipped; by 1970, 80 percent. Currently, the majority of American baby boys, 1.2 million a year, continue to be circumcised.
Medical endorsement of the procedure, though is waning. While there is evidence that circumcision is prudent for the sake of hygiene and a lower rate of penile cancer, it is also known that penile cancer is extremely rare---9 to 10 cases per year, per 1 million men. Urinary tract infections (thought to be the result of no circumcision) today are mere annoyances and not life threatening. According to a policy statement of the Academy of Pediatrics, the “potential benefits of snipping aren’t great enough to recommend it routinely.” When the AAP was asked to be more specific, they punted thusly: “ When the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.” Huh? What’d they say?
In South Africa 3000 men (one half circumcised, the other, not) participated in a study to determine if circumcision substantially affected the transmission of HIV and other venereal disease. The study was to last for 21 months, but was suspended after 10 because the circumcised men were dodging the virus in much greater numbers than their counter-parts. The president of the International Aids Vaccine Initiative, Seth Beckly, set out to convince as many adult African men he could to be circumcised. However, the risk of contracting aids in the U.S. is low, ergo, why rush to snip surgery? The American debate, at least, over circumcision will most likely never be settled by science. Here are a few reasons why? Professor Glick offers these questions: a) Why do many fathers think their sons should look just like their fathers, b) Why do secular Jews who rarely or never set foot in a synagogue still circumcise their kids? c) Why would half the human race be born needing immediate surgery?” One Jewish father whose two sons were circumcised Abraham-style, opined, “Both my boys screamed and then cried hard until the Mohel stuffed a gauze pad soaked in Manischewitz wine in their mouths. Then they nursed and fell into a deep sleep. On a Richter scale of pain, I’d say their newborn vaccine shots were a 3, a circumcision a 7, about the same level as a spinal tap.”
If you want to know more about the Abraham-style circumcision, grab your Webster’s; go to the M’s for Mohel, but first grab yourself a tall glass of Manischewitz; you’ll need it.

http://www.henryherald.com/opinion/local_story_235214252.html?keyword=secondarystory