- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I just wanted clarity on a few things:
What’s the whole problem with NY’s law on mbp? Is it the fact that we must give information to the parents on the potential dangers of mbp? Or is it the fact that they must sign the consent form?
If it’s the latter, isn’t that just putting the mohel at legal risk? I mean, let’s say c”v that something happened to the baby, technically the parents should be able to sue the mohel for not telling them the risk, and without a consent form there would be no legal support for the mohel. However, with the consent form, the mohel can claim that he gave the parents all necessary information and can be legally protected in case something c”v happens to the baby.
And one more halachic question: even if you want to argue that metzitzah has become part of the bris milah process despite the fact that the Gemara only requires it for health reasons which don’t seem to apply anymore (as opposed to bathing the baby in warm water which the Gemara also requires for health reasons but since those health reasons don’t seem to apply anymore, we no longer bathe the baby in warm water after), what is the source that it must be done orally? What is the problem with using some sort of tube? To the best of my knowledge the Gemara and the S”A only say metitzah with no mention of the mouth. It seems that the point of metzitzah is just to suction out the blood and the traditional way was orally because that was the most convenient. It seems that with a tube you would still be fulfilling the halachic benefits of metzitzah without the risks that come with doing it orally?
What’s the whole problem with NY’s law on mbp? Is it the fact that we must give information to the parents on the potential dangers of mbp? Or is it the fact that they must sign the consent form?
The problem is that this regulation crosses boundaries and contradicts religious freedom.
simcha613- actually, cases where religious beliefs prevent a parent from allowing medical treatment the court decides on an individual basis whether or not the state/hospital/nurse can take temporary guardianship of the child until the treatment is complete. This is only done on an individual basis, never as a group.
simcha613- they do have the right to decide to take over guardianship, but this is done only in extreme cases. In a recent case, an Amish girls parents wanted to discontinue chemotherapy. The hospital sued for guardianship, and the judge ruled that the parents are good, caring parents and there isn’t sufficient reason to remove the child from their care. This was in a case where the child will probably die without the chemotherapy and has an 85% chance of surviving with it, yet the court still sided with the parents.
Right. If terrorism can be outlawed even if your religion mandates it, then the obvious next step is that Shabbos can be outlawed since it causes people to work less, hence pay less taxes.
You see, reasoning like yours is precisely the reason why the very alert Rabbonim are trying to nip this pattern in the bud. Technically it doesn’t bother anyone if the parents will sign a document. Nobody is forced to do it in the first place. However, we actually don’t think it is dangerous in the least when appropriate precautions are taken (and they are), and we don’t want to be forced to say that it is.
You bring up two distinct arguments. One does not help the other.
If they want to bring attention to methods of safety, they can and did. The kind of skimpy evidence and minute instances pointed to, even if relavent, do not measure up to the eamples mentioned by either of us. Rendering something like this a danger, when it claims less victims than houshold appliances, is a leap of judgement. It is precisely this next step, the liberty for authorities to utilize a sitution as such against an established religious ritual, that is being fought. The slope is not that slippery until you oil it.
A couple in Philadelphia is facing charges that they allowed their child to die because their religion forbids medical treatments.
If something is dangerous, then the State can interfere and claiming unconstitutional won’t help, especially if the State is only asking for parental consent.
There is a reason why Nat Lewin turned down a request to be the attorney in this case. There is a video of him floating around where he said that the people bringing a suit against NYC have no case.
Theres a few articles in Tradition on this that point out pretty dammingly that the DOH is relying on to claim that there is any danger in MBP is, even from a laymens perspective, a professional disgrace in literally just about every way possible without blatantly saying we’re just inventing stuff because “common sense” judges it to be so. (Wait a minute — they actually did spell that out as one reason in the study’s wrtten report.) The legal standard to override freedom of religion is pretty high — this not only doesn’t come close, but may (probably?) not even pose any added danger whatsoever!! That’s a huge breach by government into religious freedom.
“The kind of skimpy evidence and minute instances pointed to, even if relavent, do not measure up to the eamples mentioned by either of us. Rendering something like this a danger, when it claims less victims than houshold appliances, is a leap of judgement. It is precisely this next step, the liberty for authorities to utilize a sitution as such against an established religious ritual, that is being fought. The slope is not that slippery until you oil it.”
a) Why don’t you talk to a couple whose child died and talk to them about “minute instances”. If we can save even one Jewish baby, it is worth it.
b) There are many, many times more household appliances than Jewish baby boys in the world, and people are exposed to danger from household appliances constantly, while babies only have a bris once (not counting male converts who were circumcised at birth, but that number is pretty small). The proportions are so off that the comparison is almost laughable.
c) Deaths from household appliances are also preventable (in some cases). Nobody who advocates for consent forms for metzitzah b’peh is opposed to taking preventive measures when it comes to household appliances. You make it sound like it’s one or the other.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.