# Did Dr. Oz change his position on circumcision?



## nsmomtobe (Aug 22, 2009)

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 (Dec 18, 2010)

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 (Jun 15, 2009)

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 (May 11, 2007)

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


----------



## nsmomtobe (Aug 22, 2009)

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 (Jun 15, 2009)

Quote:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2007)

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 (Nov 4, 2004)

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 (Apr 5, 2006)

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


----------



## So-Called (Jun 2, 2005)

Quote:


> 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 (Apr 5, 2007)

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


----------



## dalia (Sep 3, 2007)

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 (Dec 5, 2008)

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 (Mar 7, 2008)

Quote:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Toolip (Mar 7, 2008)

Quote:


> 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 (Sep 3, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Toolip*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


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


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Quote:


> 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


----------



## Toolip (Mar 7, 2008)

Quote:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Nov 4, 2004)

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 (Aug 22, 2009)

Quote:


> 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
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## mare54 (Jul 18, 2011)

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.


----------



## Dan Bollinger (Aug 13, 2006)

Dr. Spock also reversed his recommendation.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

I never liked Dr Oz because of his pro-circumcision stance. I still won't unless and until he reverses his opinion and actualy becomes pro-intact. Sitting on the fence in an attempt to appease everyone does not cut it.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakunangovi*
> 
> I never liked Dr Oz because of his pro-circumcision stance. I still won't unless and until he reverses his opinion and actualy becomes pro-intact. Sitting on the fence in an attempt to appease everyone does not cut it.


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.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


> 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.


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.


----------



## brant31 (Jan 11, 2009)

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.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

"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?


----------



## chrisa (Oct 9, 2011)

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?


----------



## Roland Day (Jun 2, 2013)

Dr. Oz is of Turkish descent. Turkey is a country in which nearly every male is circumcised. I have seen his advice on circumcision and I think he is very wrong.

I do not accept his recommendations on circumcision.


----------



## Ron1 (Sep 10, 2013)

Doctors are not above having cultural or religious bias. They are people - not Gods.
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.


----------

