Holistic Circumcision?

[pdx.mothernurture]

Mohel offering "holistic circumcisions" to gentiles. Is this acceptable spiritually/ethically? Is he practicing medicine without a license in this instance? (cross-posting from CAC)

http://www.holisticircumcision.com/holistic.htm

[Liquesce]

I'm not clear on how he's offering anything outside of the norm of what a mohel traditionally does, or where "holistic" comes into it aside from in a promotional sense regarding traditional circumcision rites?

ETA: Ah. I missed the "for gentiles" part of it.

[tlh]

Circumcision is painful surgery and unnatural and doing it without anesthesia only makes it more painful and that is not holistic or helpful.


Something I have been thinking about is Aposthia and Judaism.Aposthia is when a boy is born without a foreskin and according to this article the blood would have to be taken from the glans,or where the foreskin would have been.Which would mean cutting or stabbing the head of the penis just to get blood from it.I am totally against circumcision and think it is more damaging than a cut or stab but circumcision is considered a medically healthy thing to do and cutting or stabbing would just be an attack.


to have a drop of blood (hatafat-dam, הטפת דם) let from the penis at the point where the foreskin would have been (or was) attached. The Talmud (Shabbat 135A) records a discussion of whether the importance of this letting of blood supersedes Shabbat, on which only a child who was born the previous Shabbat can be circumcised. If a regular circumcision is delayed, there is no disagreement that this may not be performed on Shabbat. However, in the case of aposthia, there are two schools of thought.

R. Elazar Hakappar said that the school of Shamai and Hillel do not differ as to a child that is born without a foreskin. Both agree that the blood of the covenant must be drawn from the glans. The school of Shamai, however, contends that this may be done on the Sabbath, while the other holds that the Sabbath must not be desecrated on that account



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aposthia

[lilyka]

I guess if you are going to have your child circumcised at least this sounds a little less traumatic. I think he is getting holistic from the point that he takes the whole child into account; it is not just a cold heartless medical procedure without taking the state of the child into mind.

as for medicine without a liscence, I guess I don't consider circumcission medicine. its more body modification. so just like a pericing or tattoo you would need a lisence to do it, be subject to the health department regs and then only if you were running a business.

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by lilyka

as for medicine without a liscence, I guess I don't consider circumcission medicine. its more body modification. so just like a pericing or tattoo you would need a lisence to do it, be subject to the health department regs and then only if you were running a business.

While it is body modification, it is a surgical procedure...when was the last time someone bled to death from a tattoo or piercing?

I think a better comparison would be cosmetic surgery...it's body modification, but it's surgery as well...I wouldn't go to a tattoo parlor for a face lift.

[doctormom]

Lipstick on a pig, you know? He can call it whatever he wants for marketing purposes - it's still amputation of a healthy body part for cosmetic reasons. I don't consider that particularly holistic, I think he just seized on a popular buzzword for self-promotion.

[SleeplessMommy]

Originally Posted by lilyka

at least this sounds a little less traumatic.

Inflicting pain on an infant is just one problem I have with circumcision. Infection risk, including MRSA, is another. But the main reason is the foreskin has a *purpose*. Removing it will decrease sexual pleasure for the adult.

[1littlebit]

i think its kind of bizarre. i don't understand why a mohel would do this. a bris is ceremony with meaning and history behind it offering the circumcision without the religious aspects seems sort of off because i don't think the possible medical benefits are the biggest reason for the bris... i cant really think of the words... but it seems very odd to me

[Smokering]

Wow, that made me mad. "Minimising" the "discomfort" of the child? Yes, that's the worst thing about having one of the most sensitive parts of your body crushed and sliced off - it's not comfortable. Sheesh. The speed of the procedure isn't very comforting either - I suspect it means he's not using decent pain relief. And I notice his site neatly glosses over exactly how he makes the experience "comfortable" for the baby without using anaesthetic - unless he's found a way to beam the foreskin off the penis with a transporter, it will hurt. That's just the way it works - the foreskin is highly sensitive and extremely well-attached. You can't coax it off with loving words!

And it is extremely dishonest of him to imply that anti-circ information no longer applies as long as the procedure is done "holistically" - he must be aware that much of the anti-circ info is based on bioethical issues and the lifelong sexual repercussions of circ, neither of which are relevant to how the procedure is performed.

I have issues even with Jewish circumcision for Jewish babies, but this is another kettle of fish entirely. This is hideous.

The testimonials are pretty horrific too. "Cantor Sherman knows that parents are perhaps more "pained" by this whole process than are their baby sons." Oh, really? "I am so happy to hear that we could possibly give our son a meaningful and spiritual experience and not a horrifying painful one." Yep, I bet their newborn was feeling terribly pious as his genitals were mutilated.

OK, I'm going to burst a blood vessel if I keep thinking about this. Evil, evil, evil.

ETA: I wrote the guy a letter - it's in my blog if anyone's interested.

[smeisnotapirate]

While I don't agree with his assessment of the wonderful-ness of circumcision, I think he is MUCH more qualified to perform one than anyone in a hospital. How many residents have performed a quarter of the number of circumcisions as he has? In the case of surgery, I'd go with experience, and I think that's what he's advertising. THAT part is irrefutable. He has done more circumcisions than anyone in any hospital. Also, the ones performed by mohelim take much less time, which I think would also make him feel like he could advertise a less painful experience.

Of course he uses pain relief, and so do all Orthodox mohelim. There's no need to demonize the men who do this procedure to disagree with them.

If we can keep this thread out of the realm of making untrue assumptions about Jewish circumcision and those of us who make informed decisions to choose it for our sons, that would be great.

[fruitfulmomma]

Not interested in discussing the circ issue, but did want to say that this is pretty common for the reasons smeisnotapirate gives.

[Smokering]

The site said he uses sugar water, which is proven to be an ineffective form of pain relief for circumcision (not surprising when you think about it!). I can see how a quick-though-painful circumcision might cause less distress than one in which the baby is strapped down for 10 minutes while the still-not-entirely-effective nerve block takes effect; but the "solution" to that is surely to administer the nerve block, unstrap the baby, hold him while it takes effect and then perform the quick "holistic" version.

But in any case, as my email to him states, that's not really the point. I don't believe I have made any untrue assumptions about Jewish circ, but if I have you're welcome to point them out. It is true, is it not, that under Jewish law circumcising Gentiles is not commanded? As it establishes no covenant between them and God and has no spiritual significance, surely it would be appropriate for a mohel to be opposed to non-Jewish circumcision on humanitarian grounds? I know this is the case for a number of MDC Jewish mamas, whether or not they circumcised their own children.

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by Smokering

The site said he uses sugar water, which is proven to be an ineffective form of pain relief for circumcision (not surprising when you think about it!). I can see how a quick-though-painful circumcision might cause less distress than one in which the baby is strapped down for 10 minutes while the still-not-entirely-effective nerve block takes effect; but the "solution" to that is surely to administer the nerve block, unstrap the baby, hold him while it takes effect and then perform the quick "holistic" version.

But in any case, as my email to him states, that's not really the point. I don't believe I have made any untrue assumptions about Jewish circ, but if I have you're welcome to point them out. It is true, is it not, that under Jewish law circumcising Gentiles is not commanded? As it establishes no covenant between them and God and has no spiritual significance, surely it would be appropriate for a mohel to be opposed to non-Jewish circumcision on humanitarian grounds? I know this is the case for a number of MDC Jewish mamas, whether or not they circumcised their own children.

First off, I'm one of those Jewish mamas who fulfilled the mitzvah of bris milah for my son, but opposes non-religious circumcision. Just FTR.

Nowhere does it command that non-Jewish babies should be circumcised. This mohel may, however, be taking the ethical standpoint that circumcisions are going to be performed on non-Jewish babies, so he makes himself available to non-Jewish parents to ensure that these children have the least-painful circumcision available. He IS the best - a specialist, if you want to use a medical term. Many don't see a reason to choose their clients based on religion.

What is untrue is the assumptions about how this kind of circumcision is performed. The sugar water (or in our case, breastmilk) is what is supplied by parents. The mohel (at least in all the cases I've seen) has a spray-anesthetic (which is why he says no topical creams or injections, which is what is commonly used - if anything is used - by the medical community) that is applied. As for timing, from the time the baby is taken from the mother to the time he is placed back in her arms is less than 3 minutes.

Having someone hold the baby is what used to be done - that was the honor of the sandek. I think you'll agree with me, though, that it is not safe to perform a surgery while the table is moving - so holding the baby during the circumcision was abandoned for the child's safety. It wouldn't be good if the person holding the baby during the circumcision started to shake or fainted away, would it? I much prefer having it done quickly and safely so that momma can step in and give comfort.

This procedure, when done by a mohel, is as gentle as possible. It's not a gentle procedure, we all know that, but it is done with the baby's comfort always first in everyone's mind. If I had a friend who was dead-set on circumcision for their non-Jewish son and nothing I said would change her mind, I would recommend a mohel - for her son's sake.

[lilyka]

thank you smeisnotapirate. thats what I was trying to get at but stumbled over.

[Smokering]

smeisnotapirate: OK, thanks for clarifying. FWIW I tend to agree with you that if a friend was dead-set on circumcision I'd recommend it be done in the least traumatic way possible (be that a mohel, hospital, GP or whatever). But I don't think that exonerates Cantor Sherman, because he's the one actually performing the procedure. To use the obvious example, if it was a case of FGM "someone else would have done it more painfully" would not excuse him from a criminal conviction. Causing harm to prevent harm is an interesting ethical issue, but I think he needs to draw the line at circumcision.

What's worse is the impression I get from his site that he is not reluctantly causing harm to prevent harm, but that he is trying to drum up business. He is clearly aware of anti-circ information, so I can't attribute his willingness to circ to simple ignorance of the harm caused by the procedure. The testimonials speak of him joking and laughing about the procedure, as well as making the rather horrific statement that circ bothers the parents more than the child. And he is willing to prevent misinformation and selective information about the results, risks and sexual effects of circumcision - hardly the actions of a man who is only performing circs reluctantly.

What I'd like to see on his site at the very least is something along the lines of this:

Circumcision fulfils an important mitzvot for Jewish parents. Jewish law does not require or recommend circumcision for non-Jewish babies, nor is circumcision required according to Christian, Moslem [etc] faiths. For humanitarian reasons [hotlinked to a good site about circ] I do not perform circumcisions for non-religious reasons. As the hospital system performs circumcision in an unnecessarily painful manner, non-Jewish parents who still wish to circumcise may like to consider the following:

-insist on pain relief for the baby
-ask to hold the baby while the anaesthetic takes effect
-breastfeed the baby immediately after the procedure
[etc]

I'm curious as to whether he uses a spray anaesthetic - his site doesn't mention it specifically, which seems an odd omission if that's what he uses. In any case, spray anaesthetic is considered to be a very poor method of pain relief for babies, although I realise none of the available methods are entirely successful.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Smokering

smeisnotapirate: OK, thanks for clarifying. FWIW I tend to agree with you that if a friend was dead-set on circumcision I'd recommend it be done in the least traumatic way possible (be that a mohel, hospital, GP or whatever). But I don't think that exonerates Cantor Sherman, because he's the one actually performing the procedure. To use the obvious example, if it was a case of FGM "someone else would have done it more painfully" would not excuse him from a criminal conviction. Causing harm to prevent harm is an interesting ethical issue, but I think he needs to draw the line at circumcision.

What's worse is the impression I get from his site that he is not reluctantly causing harm to prevent harm, but that he is trying to drum up business. He is clearly aware of anti-circ information, so I can't attribute his willingness to circ to simple ignorance of the harm caused by the procedure. The testimonials speak of him joking and laughing about the procedure, as well as making the rather horrific statement that circ bothers the parents more than the child. And he is willing to prevent misinformation and selective information about the results, risks and sexual effects of circumcision - hardly the actions of a man who is only performing circs reluctantly.

What I'd like to see on his site at the very least is something along the lines of this:



I'm curious as to whether he uses a spray anaesthetic - his site doesn't mention it specifically, which seems an odd omission if that's what he uses. In any case, spray anaesthetic is considered to be a very poor method of pain relief for babies, although I realise none of the available methods are entirely successful.

I think most Muslims do circumcise, don't they? Though I believe the age is different.

It does strike me that he is trying to bring in more business, and I'm not sure why he feels he needs to do that, except for money.

My old doctor, the one that delivered me, was until recently the only dr in our city who performed circ.(I'm not sure if he has retired yet.) He didn't like it or recommend it. But apparently he was quite good at it, and he thought it was important that if it was done, it should be done by someone with some skill and practice at it. And of course there are cases where it is done for medical reasons, so he also handled all those.

I'm not sure that I agree with him totally, but I certainly see his point, and, he didn't advertise. Other doctors could refer to him if they needed to, which apparently was not often in recent years. And I do think it is a good thing to have someone experienced available for cases where it is medically necessary.

Personally, if I were Jewish I would have it done, but I don't see any reason to otherwise. I don't really like this guys attempt to drum up business, and it seems like he is trying to take something spiritual and make it commercial.

[Smokering]

I think most Muslims do circumcise, don't they? Though I believe the age is different.

I *think* I've heard Muslim MDC mamas say that it's not actually required by Muslim law, but that it tends to be done by Muslims for cultural reasons. In any case, would they use a mohel? Can anyone Muslim weigh in on this?

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by Smokering

But I don't think that exonerates Cantor Sherman, because he's the one actually performing the procedure. To use the obvious example, if it was a case of FGM "someone else would have done it more painfully" would not excuse him from a criminal conviction.

I understand. I'd also love him to have the moral standard to only circumcise Jewish babies to fulfill bris milah and not circumcise non-Jewish babies.

Originally Posted by Smokering

What's worse is the impression I get from his site that he is not reluctantly causing harm to prevent harm, but that he is trying to drum up business. He is clearly aware of anti-circ information, so I can't attribute his willingness to circ to simple ignorance of the harm caused by the procedure. The testimonials speak of him joking and laughing about the procedure, as well as making the rather horrific statement that circ bothers the parents more than the child. And he is willing to prevent misinformation and selective information about the results, risks and sexual effects of circumcision - hardly the actions of a man who is only performing circs reluctantly.

He IS trying to get business. He's a businessman, whether you like his business or not, and he makes a living off of this. The Jewish birthrate in the US and the economy make his living tough. This in no way excuses marketing to non-Jews, but it's an explanation. Just as lawyers and restaurants are trying to get into new niches, he may be too.

I'm bugged when people are horrified by mohels joking about their business. Because they're doing something you disagree with, they're not allowed to have a sense of humor about it? These men aren't laughing maniacally about scarring children for life while the baby screams in the background. They're putting the 8 days post-partum wreck of a mother who has to hand her baby over to a strange man to have a major surgery a little more at ease by being pleasant. These ceremonies are witnessed by the community, with the greatest support of the community for the baby and the mother - who, unfortunately, can't suckle at a breast to be soothed like the baby boy can. There is no anesthetic - even a not-so-effective one - for having to fulfill the mitzvah of bris milah for your tiny newborn baby.

Originally Posted by Smokering

I'm curious as to whether he uses a spray anaesthetic - his site doesn't mention it specifically, which seems an odd omission if that's what he uses. In any case, spray anaesthetic is considered to be a very poor method of pain relief for babies, although I realise none of the available methods are entirely successful.

The mohel who performed my son's bris has no mention of it on his site, either. It's apparently the most common way to do things because using it means the shortest time away from the mother, as she can hold the baby while the anesthetic is taking effect, and the baby is only away from her for the amount of time it takes to do the actual circumcision.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by Smokering

I *think* I've heard Muslim MDC mamas say that it's not actually required by Muslim law, but that it tends to be done by Muslims for cultural reasons. In any case, would they use a mohel? Can anyone Muslim weigh in on this?

It is not cultural reasons -- it is a sunnah, which basically means it is a an act directed by our prophet and which religious legal scholars have given as being either obligatory or highly recommended ... but never as "take it or leave it, it's all the same." Basically it is the parent's choice, as in all such cases, but it is the religiously stronger choice to make. The impression that it is not an act required by Islamic law most likely stems from the fact that it is not a requirement for being considered a Muslim or for salvation before God. Those facts do not, however, diminish what the standing of a sunnah is in Islam. Internally one might be able to make arguments that a sunnah only applies in certain circumstances, that it regulates unrequired cultural practices, etc, albeit those are hard cases to make given what has been said about circ. What one can not do is to make arguments that a sunnah is always bad, or always wrong.

For whatever it's worth, when asked by a Muslim about where to get a circumcision performed, I usually point them to a mohel myself.

[Smokering]

I'm bugged when people are horrified by mohels joking about their business. Because they're doing something you disagree with, they're not allowed to have a sense of humor about it? These men aren't laughing maniacally about scarring children for life while the baby screams in the background. They're putting the 8 days post-partum wreck of a mother who has to hand her baby over to a strange man to have a major surgery a little more at ease by being pleasant.

Well, yes. There is nothing funny about circumcision. Being pleasant is one thing, but joking is entirely inappropriate. Again, remember that I view circumcision as ethically analogous to FGM - wouldn't you find it disturbing if a practitioner of FGM joked about the procedure? At the very least, joking makes light of the sacrifice being made, which seems particularly obnoxious given that it is a significant sacrifice, and one which the child is not making voluntarily.

It is not cultural reasons -- it is a sunnah, which basically means it is a an act directed by our prophet and which religious legal scholars have given as being either obligatory or highly recommended ... but never as "take it or leave it, it's all the same."

Ah, OK, I wasn't aware. Thanks for the clarification.

Cantor Sherman replied to my email, BTW; I'll post his response and mine on my blog later today, if anyone's interested. ETA: here.