well it's a step in the right directions for Dr. Oz, but wow, he could have been so much more informative. He never mentions condoms as the one way that is proven to protect against STD's and HIV, but does mention the flawed Africa studies. It's good he mentioned loss of protection and sensitivity and that a baby feels pain, but he goes on to say they won't remember it. I don't think he is qualified to make such a statement. the l00% of babies being against circumcision was really good, but he didn't back it up with how it is not a decision the baby is making for himself and will he be happy with mom and dad making such a permanent decision for his body? He didn't put out enough information to get them really questioning every aspect of making the decision to circumcise, although he does mention that it isn't recommended by medical organizations. It is amazing that he said anything at all, I wish they would have asked dr Oz about the foreskin industry and how it is used in cosmetics like Skidmedicas cream that Oprah loves. I guess it is baby steps and continued efforts to get the information out there.
Did Dr. Oz change his position on circumcision? - Page 2
I agree with this.... he knows more Americans are choosing to keep their sons intact and he doesn't want to alienate his money making audiences.
That may be the case but I suspect he has realized his was a very unpopular opinion and has moved with the times.
Going against popular opinion can be devastating for a public persona and he probably realized it. Whether he embraces it or not is to be seen.
I noted Mehmet Oz's position starting to shift a while ago, and I had a different theory. My thought had to do with his daughter, who married an American guy of Serbian descent. I won't discuss religion, here or anywhere else, but I want to make a point to which historical practices are relevant. Daphne Oz got married on August 26, 2010, to John Jovanovic, a former classmate at Princeton University. His parents are Nada Jovanovic Dimitric and Stretko Dimitric of Chicago. John Jovanovic is a Serbian Orthodox Christian, a sect that almost never circumcises. (I saved a copy of the August 29, 2010 wedding announcement in the New York Times.)
So, the odds are pretty strong that Dr Oz has an intact son-in-law. It could be that Jovanovic has already made it clear to Mehmet Oz's that his grandsons will remain intact. In any event, it's clear that the marriage brought together two cultures that have very different attitudes and practices regarding the circumcision of minors.
Of course, Dr. Oz comes from a cultural heritage where circumcision is basically 100%. While Turkey is a relatively secular society, circumcision is still always performed on boys about the time they're in second grade and it's a huge deal, with months of planning planning, lots of pageantry, big family expense and tons of peer pressure. There's no way out of it, for either the parents or the boy. And Turkish boys raised elsewhere in Europe, particularly Germany, are sometimes left intact but when they return at 17 for their mandatory military service (many remain Turkish citizens even if they've never set foot there), it's a standard hazing ritual that the rest of their unit holds them down and circumcises them. This became such a well-documented issue that a judge in Germany actually granted asylum to an 18-year-old Turkish man because his getting cut in the Turkish army was a certainty, and for the first time a judge concluded that involuntary male genital cutting was the functional equivalent of involuntary female genital cutting for the purpose of asylum laws.
Dr. Oz, despite his medical training and the AAP's repeated stance that circumcision is not necessary for either health or hygiene, was originally steeped in circumcision as a standard practice. He got a double dose, from both growing up in the USA and coming from a cultural heritage where being intact past the age of 8 is basically unthinkable. For a while it seemed a sure-fire winner to publicly say circumcision was harmless, even beneficial. But as many have pointed out here, Dr. Oz is also a very public personality in a country that's trending away from infant circumcision. Couple that with a much loved, possibly intact, Ivy-educated son-in-law (and attendant family) and the shift in his attitude and recommendation seems quite understandable.
"This became such a well-documented issue that a judge in Germany actually granted asylum to an 18-year-old Turkish man because his getting cut in the Turkish army was a certainty, and for the first time a judge concluded that involuntary male genital cutting was the functional equivalent of involuntary female genital cutting for the purpose of asylum laws."
Now, why can't our judges in north America possess that same level of common sense and integrity?
He listed as pros for circumcision "the benefit of avoiding STDs", which is highly misleading. And encouraged intact men to clean their foreskin in order not to pass on STDs to women.
Really?!? I'm surprised there are any STDs left if all you have to do is cut or wash.
How is this guy a practicing MD?
The only way that male genital mutilation will end is with a constant and continual outcry. Dr. Oz needs to be held accountable for his words. If he recommended female circumcision, he would not ever be allowed back on television.