- This topic has 216 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I love you brother, but your answer was kind of funny. (I hope you don’t go thermo-nuclear on me now…) If I was wrong about the speculation of your health-industry status, you wouldn’t be unable to “recall”, since you would’ve immediately known you obviously never made such an incorrect comment. That you only don’t recall making it, indicates your status is in fact what I inquired.
Though I do recall seeing an old post of yours saying you are in school.
bubka -“Though I do recall seeing an old post of yours saying you are in school.”
Yes and perhaps the schooling has ended?
“If I was wrong about the speculation of your health-industry status, you wouldn’t be unable to “recall”, since you would’ve immediately known you obviously never made such an incorrect comment. That you only don’t recall making it, indicates your status is in fact what I inquired.”
Did you really think that I’d answer your question -so you could play process of elimination? I won’t respond to anybody – whether denying or confirming my degree(s).
And btw, it seems that you know nothing about medical education because acc. to your train of thought I admitted that I’m a nurse and a PA. While anything is possible – most nurses who want to practice medicine usually become NP’s, not PA’s. If you want to believe that I’m from this rare breed -it’s fine by me. I’m not going to admit or deny anything.
Health,
This is not about me. This is not about anyone else here. This is only about you.
You claimed to be an “expert in medicine.” I asked you very politely if you have an M.D. degree and a license to practice medicine.
What is your problem in answering?
I did not ask your name, where you work, where you live or where you daven. Just if you are a graduate from medical school and a practicing physician.
Your refusal to answer such a simple question may lead others to reach certain conclusions about you and your posts especially when you react in a less than cordial manner.
By the way, it is indeed possible to read back pages of this website that were posted even years before one became a member.
Borough Park Mensch -“Health, This is not about me. This is not about anyone else here. This is only about you.
You claimed to be an “expert in medicine.” I asked you very politely if you have an M.D. degree and a license to practice medicine.
What is your problem in answering?
I did not ask your name, where you work, where you live or where you daven. Just if you are a graduate from medical school and a practicing physician.”
And I’m not interested in the topic being about me -so I didn’t answer.
“By the way, it is indeed possible to read back pages of this website that were posted even years before one became a member.”
Good idea. I’ve already explained in detail why I won’t answer this question -so go back and find my old posts. You can even do a search of the CR.
I could be wrong, and I could be confusing Health with someone else, but I remember someone wanting to buy a present for a friend who was graduating from nursing school. The person asked Health for suggestions, and it turned out that Health was that friend.
If I’m wrong, I apologize.
As a law student, I find this topic interesting. I did a tiny bit of research and it seems to me that this law would be held up to “Strict Scrutiny” which means that a court would evaluate three things to determine whether the law is Constitutional:
1. Whether the law serves a compelling government interest,
2. Whether the law is narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest, and
3. Whether this law is the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
(If 2 and 3 sound similar, that’s because they are.)
I would be very surprised if a court would find that the law does not serve a compelling government interest. It really comes down, IMO, to the argument over whether MbP is proven to be dangerous, but I don’t know if the court is going to require a statistical study to prove that putting a diseased mouth on a bloody wound is dangerous.
If the court rules that the “compelling government interest” part is met, then the others are easy, IMO. The restriction is more narrowly tailored than it could have been. All it does is spread awareness (and create a presumption of liability, if a mohel neglects to inform the parents.)And the least restrictive means – well, I guess that they could have taken out ads in Jewish papers or bought billboards in Boro Park, but that would not have targeted the knowledge of the people in question – the parents hiring the mohel to do a bris. The restriction does not require anything outside of each specific transaction. It doesn’t require mohels to register, or to get training, or to wear gloves. ALL it does is require a mohel to inform parents of a risk that they are undertaking. It seems as unrestrictive as a law could be, that purports to address this problem.
In case it wasn’t obvious from my post, I am anti-MbP. I had a long discussion about this with a classmate who is pro-MbP, and he felt strongly that the legal challenge would prevail.
As a law student, I find this topic interesting. I did a tiny bit of research and it seems to me that this law would be held up to “Strict Scrutiny” which means that a court would evaluate three things to determine whether the law is Constitutional:
1. Whether the law serves a compelling government interest,
2. Whether the law is narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest, and
3. Whether this law is the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
I don’t see how this is “least restrictive” if a mass mailing of the concerns to all NYC residents would accomplish the same goal of disseminating the information. if MBP was disallowed by NYC completely then this would be a completely different case, but as is it is also a freedom of speech issue, as the government is focing the Mohelim to speak.
I don’t see how this is “least restrictive” if a mass mailing of the concerns to all NYC residents would accomplish the same goal of disseminating the information.
Intuitively, it makes a lot more sense to address the parents directly at the time of the procedure rather than send out a letter that will be thrown out and forgotten. Also, you’re saying that the Health Department should be forced to bear the cost of the risky religious procedure.
Legally, I am not sure exactly how the court would evaluate other potential options. I would imagine that they do not expect every mandated disclosure to be sent out by the Health Department.
Legally, I am not sure exactly how the court would evaluate other potential options. I would imagine that they do not expect every mandated disclosure to be sent out by the Health Department.
I guess we will find out.
haifagirl -“I could be wrong, and I could be confusing Health with someone else, but I remember someone wanting to buy a present for a friend who was graduating from nursing school. The person asked Health for suggestions, and it turned out that Health was that friend.”
I never read this situation/scenario here in the CR, let alone with me.
Are you having a senior moment or is this a fiction novel that you’re writing?
VM -“In case it wasn’t obvious from my post, I am anti-MbP. I had a long discussion about this with a classmate who is pro-MbP, and he felt strongly that the legal challenge would prevail.”
I’d agree with you, but if you read my posts here -I figured out a way to have MBP. So I see nothing wrong with doing it -if they implement some sort of guideline.
The whole court case is a red herring. What these orgs. should be concerned about is the health of the kids. Do what you can to make MBP safe -so there will no problem in the first place.
Health: to me the issue is who are “they” and what sort of solution are they going to find? I suspect that if the original mohel had agreed to stop metzitzah b’peh, or even to some control measure, we never would have gotten to this point. Since that original story, has there been any effort at all to systematize guidelines for mohelim regarding the risk of infection? Not to my knowledge, although I welcome anyone’s input.
So the government steps in and says that they will force us, not to stop bris, not to even stop metzitzah b’peh, but to let the parents know that there is a risk and ask that they formally accept it. It is, frankly, an almost perfectly conceived law, which is rare for government. It doesn’t affect the religious practice of people who want to do it – they are free to accept the risk. It doesn’t threaten certain mohelim. It doesn’t require any further oversight by the government. It does, in my estimation, two things. It gives opportunity for people who are less educated about or less committed to, metzitzah b’peh a set time to opt out. And it (likely) makes a mohel liable if it can be found that he was negligent in preparing, including in failing to inform. Both of those effects are perfectly reasonable – in fact, they would have been a great place for the community itself to start, if they were in fact interested in protecting babies’ health.
bubka -“>HERE< Health trained as a medic.
>HERE< Health trains in medicine and has experience in EMS.
>HERE< Health was doing an ER rotation in Coney Island Hospital.
>HERE< Health was an EMT and paramedic.”
Now I certaintly don’t understand the purpose of this post. Are you now trying to disprove your theory that I’m a nurse & a PA? Or are you trying to say that in addition to being an EMT & Medic, I’m also a nurse and a PA?
If it’s the latter, then you are agreeing with me that I’m an expert. Because only an expert can have so many degrees/qualifications. But I can also be an expert even with one qualification. But I’m not admitting to anything besides to what I admitted to before. It’s possible, that I’m everything -a nurse, a NP, a PA and a Physician. I won’t admit or deny anything.
VM -“if they were in fact interested in protecting babies’ health.”
I don’t think you understood my point. I don’t think the Gov. has any business getting involved, even though they claim to care about Jewish babies. I’ve had too much experience with their love towards Yidden – that to me it’s only the fox guarding the hen house. If they care about human babies -how about regulating Abortion? (I mean much more regs.) Notice I didn’t say stopping it totally because that is protected by the Supreme Court. But regulating it would probably pass Federal Court scrutiny. So, I don’t live in some sort of dream world.
But my problem is -two wrongs don’t make a right. While I agree that these orgs. should fight these regs. -I don’t agree with their attitude -that there is no problem. Why do our leaders & our orgs. always put their head in the sand when it comes to important issues? I could post a long list of everything that’s been swept under the carpet, but that would be off topic.
I don’t think they do this because they don’t care about kid’s health, but because they are not versed in science they end up doing what’s PC in the Frum comunity.
If they want to address the issue of MBP -they should start by implementing a guideline that would make MBP virtually safe for everyone!
Today a United States federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a Stay of Enforcement against the Bloomberg Health Department from enacting the metzitza b’peh regulation!
From today’s Times regarding a different Supreme Court case decided a few months ago:
[Floyd] Abrams [the prominent constitutional lawyer]
Laws based on the content of speech, the Supreme Court has long held, must face such scrutiny.
Justice Thomas took a different approach. Any law that singles out a topic for regulation, he said, discriminates based on content and is therefore presumptively unconstitutional.
Securities regulation is a topic. Drug labeling is a topic. Consumer protection is a topic.
A recent case illustrates the distinction between the old understanding of content neutrality and the new one.
This month, after the Reed decision, the appeals court reversed course and struck down the ordinance.
Last week, a federal judge in New Hampshire relied on Reed to strike down a law that made it illegal to take a picture of a completed election ballot and show it to others, including on social media. The law was meant to combat vote buying and coercion, which were common before the adoption of the secret ballot.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.