Did Dr. Oz change his position on circumcision?

[NSmomtobe]

I just came across this video clip, which apparently aired in late January. It is certainly not anti-circ, especially with the comments of the hostess (thank you Gail), and it is full of misleading information. However, Dr. Oz actually says (near the end) that if a baby is born with it, it must be there for a reason and he would personally lean against circumcision. Wow! Is this really the same guy who argued against taking away a baby boy's right to circumcision by using a turtle neck and confetti to make a mockery of the procedure?

http://www.oprah.com/own-ask-oprahs-all-stars/Dr-Oz-on-Circumcision

[AnnDMFT]

I saw that!  I also noticed that he said: "!00% of baby boys would say NO to circumcison."  And he acknowledged there is pain in the procedure.  I wish he would just full-fledged come out AGAINST it and start talking about the benefits of foreskin, but it's a start! 

P.S.  My daughter was born on January 3, 2007!

[Lucy Alden]

Seriously Gail?  A circumcised penis looks better?  Should we give our newborn daughters breast enhancements because their future partner will think it looks better?  I think this argument, at its core, is sexual.  And that just bothers me on so many levels.  The glib nature in which people discuss surgically removing a functioning part of an infants body is just heartbreaking.

I wasn't aware of Dr. Oz's stance on circumcision prior to this.  It did sound like, while he supports a parents right to choose, he personally believes the foreskin should be left alone.  I wish he had mentioned that retracting and cleaning under the foreskin should only happen after retraction has naturally occurred.

[Ron_Low]

I think we got to him.  We were all over his Facebook and YouTube presence. 

[NSmomtobe]

Ann, I know! I couldn't believe he said those things. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. Neat birthday coincidence.

Lucy, I agree with everything you said. It seems like he was encouraging retraction. I found it funny he used "looking like dad" as a benefit while talking to two moms but appearance seemed to be a big theme. If you want to know his prior stance, check out this clip from 2 months earlier. It should leave you speechless:

http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/pulse-latest-health-news-pt-1

Ron, great work! Are you working on "Dr. Lisa" from "The Doctors" as well?

[Lucy Alden]

Originally Posted by NSmomtobe 

Lucy, I agree with everything you said. It seems like he was encouraging retraction. I found it funny he used "looking like dad" as a benefit while talking to two moms but appearance seemed to be a big theme. If you want to know his prior stance, check out this clip from 2 months earlier. It should leave you speechless:

http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/pulse-latest-health-news-pt-1

 

I guess this is why I don't watch "Dr. Oz" or "The Doctors".  The misinformation and glib attitude to permanent body modification is just horrifying.

[Papai]

I'm speechless. What an about face! Maybe some intactivists passed some information on to him? He validated, on national tv no less, that circumcised men have less sensitivity than intact men. And he personally advocated against it. Stunned.

[jessjgh1]

Well, maybe we can get Oprah to never run that horrid older clip and just the newer one.  His opinion, pro-circ seems to come up a lot, unfortunately, even if he has tempered his view.

Jessica

[Treece]

Oprah? Yeah right. She advocates foreskin containing creams.....

[So-Called]

Originally Posted by Papai 

I'm speechless. What an about face! Maybe some intactivists passed some information on to him? He validated, on national tv no less, that circumcised men have less sensitivity than intact men. And he personally advocated against it. Stunned.

Ditto. This is a huge change from what he was saying just a few months ago. HUGE. For him to give even a single point that came across as pro-intact would have been surprising enough, but this kind of capitulation is really shocking. It's not perfect, but it's very encouraging. It shows that even a staunch advocate of circumcision can see the light when he's challenged with the right information. 
 

[Pirogi]

I guess I'm jaded, but I personally think it's a business decision stemming from bad press on the issue.

[dalia]

Good for Dr. Oz! I personally think he is a good person. He has a lotta guts to change his mind when he is so in the public eye.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

On Gayle: hopefully anyone looking into circ would know better than to take advice from someone who insists on calling the penis a pee-pee.

I really liked that they actually showed cutting it off and that they were all exaggerated about it.  I don't think most people want to picture themselves coming at their newborn baby with a pair of scissors.

[Toolip]

Originally Posted by NSmomtobe 

Ann, I know! I couldn't believe he said those things. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. Neat birthday coincidence.

Lucy, I agree with everything you said. It seems like he was encouraging retraction. I found it funny he used "looking like dad" as a benefit while talking to two moms but appearance seemed to be a big theme. If you want to know his prior stance, check out this clip from 2 months earlier. It should leave you speechless:

http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/pulse-latest-health-news-pt-1

Ron, great work! Are you working on "Dr. Lisa" from "The Doctors" as well?

Holey crap!  I've only heard tell about that clip before
 

[Toolip]

Originally Posted by Pirogi 

I guess I'm jaded, but I personally think it's a business decision stemming from bad press on the issue.

I agree

[dalia]

Originally Posted by Toolip 

Originally Posted by Pirogi 

I guess I'm jaded, but I personally think it's a business decision stemming from bad press on the issue.

I agree

But the good thing is that regardless of why he changed he is reaching a huge audience. This is a good thing!

[jessjgh1]

Originally Posted by CrunchyChristianMama 

On Gayle: hopefully anyone looking into circ would know better than to take advice from someone who insists on calling the penis a pee-pee.

I really liked that they actually showed cutting it off and that they were all exaggerated about it.  I don't think most people want to picture themselves coming at their newborn baby with a pair of scissors.

I thought it was a horrid portrayal that really minimized the procedure.  He acted like you can just pull a little piece forward and cut it off- nothing about the foreskin having to be forcibly retracted.  The medical teaching vids (as an example of a neutral video- not one produced by intactivists) on Stanford Med's hospital site look pretty horrid and probably would be a realistic picture of what is going on- they are intended as teaching vids for medical students  http://newborns.stanford.edu/Circumcision.html

To the majority of people that haven't really seen an intact infant foreskin, and don't understand that the foreskin is adhered, (like me at first) it only gives  the wrong impression

It continues to perpetrate the myth that it is just a snip  (and I don't mean to imply this is purposeful, I don't think so. If dr oz did receive a circ as part of a muslim culture that circs in adolescence he probably might not really even think about the distinction either- not that I think doing it later is any less horrid- I imagine the foreskin isn't really thought of positively when you have to hack it off when you older )

I'm glad some of his content has improved, but I'm not sure it is going to be make much difference

Jessica

Edited by jessjgh1 - 2/8/11 at 4:00pm

[Toolip]

Originally Posted by jessjgh1 

I thought it was a horrid portrayal that really minimized the procedure.  He acted like you can just pull a little piece forward and cut it off- nothing about the foreskin having to be forcibly retracted.  The medical teaching vids (as an example of a neutral video- not one produced by intactivists) on Stanford Med's hospital site look pretty horrid and probably would be a realistic picture of what is going on- they are intended as teaching vids for medical students  http://newborns.stanford.edu/Circumcision.html. 

To the majority of people that haven't really seen an intact infant foreskin, and don't understand that the foreskin is adhered, (like me at first) it only gives  the wrong impression

It continues to perpetrate the myth that it is just a snip  (and I don't mean to imply this is purposeful, I don't think so. If dr oz did receive a circ as part of a muslim culture that circs in adolescence he probably might not really even think about the distinction either- not that I think doing it later is any less horrid- I imagine the foreskin isn't really thought of positively when you have to hack it off when you older )

I'm glad some of his content has improved, but I'm not sure it is going to be make much difference

Jessica

I agree that it was not a perfect "anti-circ" statement, just that it was a big change in sentiment from the "turtleneck/confetti clip"

I would love to see the link that you posted but it didn't work for me.

[jessjgh1]

Oops, I just added a period at the end of the sentence, which doesn't work for a website url.  If for some reason my link doesn't work, just delete the period at the end.  It's a little glitchy right now, even though I corrected it and copied and pasted it, it is still taking me to the url with the typo      http://newborns.standford.edu/Circumcision/html

or try this one, which goes to the 'introduction' screen and has no graphics or photos on it:  http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircInfo.html

Jessica

Seriously, weird glitches there, but probably due to my caching/history, so I hope it doesn't fail for others.

[NSmomtobe]

Originally Posted by jessjgh1 

I thought it was a horrid portrayal that really minimized the procedure.  He acted like you can just pull a little piece forward and cut it off- nothing about the foreskin having to be forcibly retracted.  The medical teaching vids (as an example of a neutral video- not one produced by intactivists) on Stanford Med's hospital site look pretty horrid and probably would be a realistic picture of what is going on- they are intended as teaching vids for medical students  http://newborns.stanford.edu/Circumcision.html

To the majority of people that haven't really seen an intact infant foreskin, and don't understand that the foreskin is adhered, (like me at first) it only gives  the wrong impression

It continues to perpetrate the myth that it is just a snip  (and I don't mean to imply this is purposeful, I don't think so. If dr oz did receive a circ as part of a muslim culture that circs in adolescence he probably might not really even think about the distinction either- not that I think doing it later is any less horrid- I imagine the foreskin isn't really thought of positively when you have to hack it off when you older )

I'm glad some of his content has improved, but I'm not sure it is going to be make much difference

Jessica

I agree that it minimized the procedure by giving the loosest circ possible rather than separating the foreskin from the glans so that the glans would be uncovered.