START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
1,457,595 people care about Health Policy

When Circumcisions Transmit Herpes: We Need to Talk About It

When Circumcisions Transmit Herpes: We Need to Talk About It

A minority circumcision practice among ultra-orthodox Jews has been identified as the likely source of infants contracting herpes, but will religious sensitivities prevent the authorities taking action? It shouldn’t, and here’s why.

A new study published this month in The Journal of Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society provides evidence that the relatively uncommon but still used practice known as metzitzah b’peh (MBP) can transmit HSV-1, or the herpes simplex virus, to infants. The procedure involves the person carrying out the circumcision, known as the mohel, placing his mouth on the circumcision wound in order to suck out a small amount of blood which he then discards.

The New York Times has a description of one particular ritual:

The mohel lifted the infant’s clothing to expose his tiny penis. With a rapid flick of a sharp two-sided scalpel, the mohel sliced off the foreskin and held it between his fingers. Then he took a sip of red wine from a cup and bent his head. He placed his lips below the cut, around the base of the baby’s penis, for a split second, creating suction, then let the wine spill from his mouth out over the wound.

The health problem with this practice is that in just the American population alone, it’s estimated that more than half have HSV, and transmitting the virus to children at such a young age has been known to cause sometimes serious health complications, and even fatalities.

Cases of transmission between 1988 and 2012 were revealed in this latest study, with researchers from Penn Medicine’s Center for Evidence-based Medicine finding 30 reported cases of HSV-1 infant transmissions from New York, Canada and Israel. The systematic review, which is the first of its kind, examined six different studies, all containing descriptive accounts or case notes of infection after circumcisions that employed direct oral suction.

The researchers believe this study gives sufficient clinical evidence to say that the oral suction practice is dangerous and, while we don’t know how many are currently practicing the technique (though some figures estimate about 3,600 local circumcisions each year in New York City), it needs further investigation and follow-up.

The practice is extremely controversial, with the majority of mohels using a glass pipette or a sponge to draw blood away from the wound instead of the oral suction technique. However, there are some who stand by the ritual and fiercely defend it as safe. Furthermore, when in 2012 the New York City health department introduced a regulation requiring parents to sign a consent form before such circumcisions could go ahead, religious groups like the Agudath Israel of America and several other orthodox groups filed a lawsuit contending that the regulation violates their religious freedom.

Ultimately, a federal judge upheld the regulation based in part on the argument that it protects the religious liberty of the parents by allowing them to give informed consent, but the authorities have not been strict about enforcing the regulation, likely because of the religious sensitivities they seem to fear offending. That said, there is rising pressure for health authorities to do more on this issue.

In addition to the publication of this recent health data, the New York City Department of Health issued a health alert on July 22, saying the department had received confirmation of two new cases of HSV infection following the “orogential suction” circumcision ritual. It adds an explanation of just how damaging contracting HSV at such a young age can be:

In both of the cases reported in July, the infant boys were born to mothers with full-term pregnancies, had normal vaginal deliveries, and underwent ritual Jewish circumcision including direct orogenital suction on day of life 8. In the first case, the baby was evaluated as an outpatient on day of life 16 for pustular lesions on the penis and genital area. HSV infection was suspected, and a genital specimen collected for viral culture. The baby was admitted to the hospital and treated with acyclovir and clindamycin. Additional specimens were collected at the hospital for HSV testing, including CSF, blood, and swabs of lesions; all were negative for HSV, and the baby was discharged on day of life 19. On day of life 22, the initial viral culture taken as an outpatient was positive for HSV (non-typable). The baby was re-admitted to the hospital for intravenous acyclovir treatment. In the second case, the baby developed lesions on his penis, left thigh, and left foot beginning on day of life 17. On day of life 19, the baby’s pediatrician collected specimens for bacterial culture, which came back negative. The next day, after the appearance of new vesicular lesions, the pediatrician suspected HSV, and the baby was admitted to the hospital. Two swabs of genital lesions and one swab of a foot lesion were positive for HSV-1 by PCR. In both cases, the location of lesions, timing of signs and symptoms, and laboratory identification of HSV are consistent with transmission of HSV during direct contact between the mouth of the ritual circumciser and the newly circumcised infant penis.

There are some mohels practicing the ritual who contend that, with proper health screening under licensed (though self-regulated) circumcision practitioners, this ritual is entirely safe — that they would even go to jail rather than stop performing the ritual which, the devout believe, is the only way to confirm a newborn son as Jewish.

The problem here seems to be that we are finding it difficult to parse exactly where the line of religious liberty should end. We’ve heard the defenses for the wider practice of circumcision,  and at the very least there are some noteworthy if not compelling positive health outcomes relating to circumcision. There are also a number of arguments against circumcision, chiefly that the practice violates the autonomy of the newborn baby boy and his right to make decisions concerning his own body when he is capable. Yet, I believe those arguments aren’t needed here.

Despite what some mohels who still carry out oral suction might claim, we have strong evidence that this particular form of circumcision practice is not only just morally fraught, but is actively dangerous to the health of the child. With this in mind, enforcing a rule that demands informed parental consent, and punishing those mohels who refuse to comply or even actively flout the rule (as has been happening), is not only justified, it seems it is entirely necessary in order to safeguard the health of the child — which, of course, should always be our first concern, even above what I am sure is sincerely held religious belief.

Read more: , , , , ,

Photo credit: Thinkstock.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
7:28PM PDT on Aug 2, 2014

Thanks for the article.....won't stop those performing it for religious reasons.....they do it behind closed Australia doctors are no longer allowed to do circumcisions even under the most hygenic conditions......mutilation is it male or female........

10:52AM PDT on Aug 2, 2014

The Orthodox community should be Demanding that those who perform this practice be tested on a quarterly basis and present a clean bill of health before the ceremony. Shame on them.

8:42AM PDT on Aug 1, 2014

Since ircumcision alters sex dramatically we should indeed be talking about it. EVERY circumcision removes exquisite pleasure-receptive parts and strips away the protection for the glans. MANY circumcisions also have horrid unintended effects.

Only the owner of the genitals has the ethical standing to request parts be cut away.

3:46AM PDT on Aug 1, 2014

Thank you.

10:08PM PDT on Jul 31, 2014

This is terrible. Religion or not they should be banning this! Poor innocent babies and now they have to live with this. Herpes alone is a horrible disease to have.

I felt like I wanted to die when my doctor confirmed that I have herpes. After my bf left me, I couldn't bring myself to go on normal dates again. Because I was ashamed to tell anyone that I have herpes. But of course my story is different from how the babies got them.

I have wasted so much money on medication that couldn't really fix my problem. Worse, I was losing a lot of hair and I was constantly exhausted. Almost lost my job!

In my desperation, I have tried many drugs and alternative methods. You name it, I've tried it. I just would not give up!

After many failed attempts, I have been free of outbreaks for 6 months and 2 weeks without taking any medication. I have finally found a method that works for me!

If u also have herpes, JUST KEEP TRYING until you find something that works. If anyone cares to hear what I've tried and what I have been doing. Then I'd be happy to help in any way.

Just reach out to me at michelleyunjc[at]gmail[dot]com and I will share more details about my experiences.

I wish someone would have helped me out when I was struggling to find a solution. So if I can help you then it would make my day.

6:40PM PDT on Jul 31, 2014


1:05PM PDT on Jul 31, 2014

Yeah, you may have guessed I'm not happy having been a victim of genital mutilation myself. Given the choice, I'd rather have not. God made me this way. No one should have had the right to mutilate me.

1:02PM PDT on Jul 31, 2014

There is just so much wrong with this. Firstly and basely it's genital mutilation. We're mulitating our male children because supposedly God wants us to. The same one that made the penis that way. What does this say about religion? That one's faith and practice shows your creator as an idiot. Secondly, a grown man putting his mouth on a baby's penis?!?!?! When the hell did that start? Lets start mutilating our male children and lets just go over the top and we'll put their penises in our mouths. How does that sound? Cool? Okay, it's religious law now.
Instead of mutilating our male children how about we engage in good hygiene. How about we wait until the child is a man to make that decision for themselves. I hate to say this because some idiot might go, hmmm, sounds like a good idea. Why don't we tattoo our babies with religious iconography using dirty needles. Hey, God could have screwed up by not have a crucifix tattooed to everyones left buttcheek.

11:17AM PDT on Jul 31, 2014

As a woman I am not very interested.

5:25AM PDT on Jul 31, 2014

The photo accompanying this story gives the impression that the ritual is being carried out by a medical professional (gloved hand holding a surgical scalpel.) When done in the hospital, sanitary precautions are taken and no doctor sucks the child's penis.

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

Climate change poses a fundamental threat to the places, species and people’s livelihoods around…

Great dog, great rescue, thanks for posting

Such a wonderful miracle - cannot believe Rita survived but so grateful for her kind rescuers. Hope she…

meet our writers

Steve Williams Steve Williams is a passionate supporter of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) rights, human... more
ads keep care2 free

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.