I assume the reason for this is that they believe this to be
a church state issue. And that they believe that even signing a consent form
about a religious practice is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right
to practice one’s religion freely. And that it may be a slippery slope to further
- more serious intervention in religious rights.
I don’t want to re-hash the whole argument here. But I have
to admit being conflicted about it - because both sides have valid issues.
Every time an argument is made by one side which all seem
like good arguments – the other side comes out with an equally good argument
for their side. Here are the questions:
Where do you draw the line between protecting your citizens
and freedom of religion?
On the other hand - how does signing a consent form
interfere with religion?
On the other hand -when the risk is so low, is there really
a need for a consent form?
On the other hand - why not inform even if the risk is low -
if it is really there?
On the other hand - if informing the public about this is
the main concern, why not simply require that parents be informed? Why require goverment
documentation?
On the other hand - will a policy of informing the public actually
be implemented without the government requirement to document it?
On the other hand - if one segment feels that MbP is a
religious requirement and the risk is so low, maybe those people should not be
required to sign a consent form - since it might scare people away from it
unnecessarily?
For me preventing the mouth from coming into contact with an
open wound makes a lot of sense. Even if there never was a single case of herpes
ever reported - doing something like that seems like the height of folly!
With all the bacteria a mouth is known to contain - and the possibility
that it might contain bacteria or viruses that are very harmful to a vulnerable
8 day old child while an adult carrier might not even be aware of it - it is not
exactly rocket science to know that putting your mouth on an open wound is not
a good idea. Add to that the recent cases of Herpes that government health
agencies like the CDC believe to be caused by MbP - opposition to it seems like a no brainer.
But then there are the arguments put forth by others based on different medical
experts who say the statistical probability of contracting a disease from the
mouth of a Mohel is so low and that reported cases of MbP infection by a Mohel remain unproven, that any regulation at all – even signing a consent form is an
unnecessary infringement by the government on the religious rights of its
citizens.
Add to that the fear of the ‘slippery slope’ argument and all the tumult in the world about circumcision in general (e.g. the ban on it by a German court in Cologne until the age of consent) - and it seems like that is a good argument to fight that proposed legislation.
Add to that the fear of the ‘slippery slope’ argument and all the tumult in the world about circumcision in general (e.g. the ban on it by a German court in Cologne until the age of consent) - and it seems like that is a good argument to fight that proposed legislation.
So after taking another look at it - at this point I am just
not sure. I still tend to side with not opposing the legislation because I don’t
think there is a slippery slope here. Nor do I think that interferes with the
right of a parent to go ahead with MbP if he chooses to. All it does is inform
him about the possible dangers.
Will it scare him away? If he is a Chasid, probably not. If
he is not a Chasid, let it scare him away. What is lost if he does Metzitza in
a more hygienic way without direct oral contact?
I can actually hear both sides of the argument. But it may be a moot point. It appears the city of New York has just approved the legislation.
