And the story repeats itself, yet again.
Another baby dies following his circumcision, and, again, circumcision didn't kill him, it was something else.
It's always something else, isn't it.
The men with the knives are never to blame.
Reads the Jewish Press article:
"It was reported by the rabbinate that “since the initial diagnosis, the doctors who treated the baby were convinced that the complication in the baby’s condition was not the result of the circumcision but resulted from a previously existing medical condition."
What could it have been, then? Was there anything done to determine there were any "previously existing medical conditions" prior to the boy's mutilation?
“An investigation revealed that the mohel who performed the circumcision is a veteran, certified mohel,” said the Rabbinate’s statement. “The mohel followed procedure and performed a test on the baby after the rite. Only about half an hour after circumcision did signs of the medical complication in the child began to appear, not related to the circumcision itself. The mohel accompanied the family to the hospital.”
Yes, being a "certified veteran" already puts one beyond suspicion, doesn't it. What is the reason this "veteran" performed the "test" after, not before the procedure?
Read it again:
"Only about half an hour after circumcision did signs of the medical complication in the child began to appear, not related to the circumcision itself."
The deliberate denial in this story is absolutely unbelievable.
"A week ago, at about 11 AM, MDA paramedics were called to a synagogue in Holon, after an infant who had undergone a rite of circumcision there had stopped breathing and lost consciousness, shortly after the ceremony. The rescue crew took him to Wolfson Medical Center. After resuscitation in the hospital shock room, the baby’s condition stabilized."
Yes, I'm sure the fact this child died had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was submitted to a needless, excruciatingly painful circumcision prior. This sounds awfully familiar to the Amitai Moshe case that happened in England.
"After investigating the circumstances of the case, it was discovered that the circumcision had actually been performed flawlessly..."
Yes, "flawlessly." So "flawlessly" that the child is now dead.
I wonder what constitutes as "flawless." Is that anything like a "flawless" female sunat?
"...and apparently baby choked during feeding.
'The bris had concluded safely and then everyone sat down to eat,” Abraham, a friend of the family, related. 'He was nursing from his mother and then she put him in his cart. At some point we noticed that the child was not responding and had turned blue.'"
Got that? It was the mother's fault. She should have known better than to feed him.
It is simply beyond belief the way the painfully obvious is ignored here to protect tradition and evade responsibility.
This wasn't the first time this has happened, and, until people have the honesty and integrity to call a spade a spade, it won't be the last.
In the UK, another boy, Amitai Moshe, goes into cardiac arrest immediately after his bris. The verdict of his inquest a few years later? Amitai Moshe died of "natural causes," and the fact that he started having breathing problems and started bleeding through his nose and mouth had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was ritually circumcised just minutes before.
Read the shameless story here.
(Read Jewish Press article on the current incident in Israel here.)
Related Posts:
CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer
And if it was a preexisting medical condition, then what had the mother feeding the baby had to do with it? And if it was because he choked, what had the preexisting condition had to do? And what was the preexisting medical condition anyway?
ReplyDeleteThe lack of integrity in this reporting reminds me of the first American babies who died from circumcision:
"The first known reported circumcision-related deaths (in the United States) were in New York City, where circumcision was introduced. The first was Julius Katzenstein in 1856 and the second was one-week-old Myer Jacob Levy in 1858. Both boys were circumcised by a Dr. Abrahams, and the same coroner reviewed both deaths. The coroner found that Abrahams had performed the surgeries properly, and that the boys died from blood loss as a result of parental neglect. Neither boy had received a follow-up examination."
http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html
Nevermind where the blood was coming from.
Yes, it's never the unneeded medical procedure.