News Monitor: Metzitzah and Herpes

This from the Jewish Week.

There are those who may call the Jewish Week all kinds of names, and may disagree with their at-times slanted approach. But I don't think they are off on this one. I think sensible people want to protect babies, and don't believe that any part of the bris should "possibly" put the baby in danger (with the exception of the Biblically mandated circumcision itself - which is only done on healthy babies, and, when done properly, is a safe procedure - with a very good track record).



Every time I have read an article written by a physician advocating "metzitzah with direct-oral-contact" as "a safe procedure" the article has been wholly unscientific and very very tainted by the doctor's "hashkafa" (Jewish perspective) as dictated by his emotions and religious beliefs, rather than by medical realities.

BTW, in the article, they quote one of these doctors as having claimed that "the baby had a rash" before the bris. Were that the case, any responsible mohel would not have gone ahead with the circumcision. A rash on the genitals (as opposed to on the tush) is not "normal" and a responsible mohel will wait at least until the rash goes away before doing the bris.