Columbia University Docs Ask For Dr. Oz's Dismissal

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted547631
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Columbia's response struck me as weaksauce: "As I am sure you understand and appreciate, Columbia is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members' freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion."

This isn't some political science professor espousing the virtues of socialism and advocating for the overthrow of capitalism. It's about a scientist being accused of being unscientific. It's akin to a chemist teaching alchemy and then having the school saying, "oh, he's just quirky, as is his right to be." Columbia needs to either defend Dr. Oz's claims on their merit or GTFO.
 
Last edited:
colbgw02 said:
Columbia's response struck me as weaksauce: "As I am sure you understand and appreciate, Columbia is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members' freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion."

This isn't some political science professor espousing the virtues of socialism and advocating for the overthrow of capitalism. It's about a scientist being accused of being unscientific. It's akin to a chemist teaching metallurgy and then having the school saying, "oh, he's just quirky, as is his right to be." Columbia needs to either defend Dr. Oz's claims on their merit or GTFO.
Click to expand...

Your point is sound, but you meant alchemy. Metallurgy is legit materials science. Uniting the male and female principles in the quest for the philosopher's stone is alchemy. Or porn. Whatever.
 
Oz makes my blood boil. He may have medical training, but he has abandoned the profession for that of a showman and snake oil peddler.

He is an embarrassment to Columbia. Here is hoping that the administration recognizes this, with enough pressure from those of its physicians and others who are mortified to have their institution granting legitimacy to his side show antics.
 
Tired said:
No they don't. Universities are forums for discourse, that's it. The merits of his statements are irrelevant. He has done nothing illegal or unethical, he has only espoused his opinions. Good for Columbia for remembering that academic freedom comes first. The fact that smart guys disagree with him does not mean that he should be fired. Shame on our field for acting like such twits.
Click to expand...

So if the surgeon general starts spouting how vaccines are evil and medicine is from the devil, they should keep their job ?
 
...
 
Last edited:
Tired said:
No they don't. Universities are forums for discourse, that's it. The merits of his statements are irrelevant. He has done nothing illegal or unethical, he has only espoused his opinions. Good for Columbia for remembering that academic freedom comes first. The fact that smart guys disagree with him does not mean that he should be fired. Shame on our field for acting like such twits.
Click to expand...

Actually, the people criticizing him are claiming just that.
 
Tired said:
No they don't. Universities are forums for discourse, that's it. The merits of his statements are irrelevant. He has done nothing illegal or unethical, he has only espoused his opinions. Good for Columbia for remembering that academic freedom comes first. The fact that smart guys disagree with him does not mean that he should be fired. Shame on our field for acting like such twits.
Click to expand...


Bam. The whole point of university tenure is to allow the professor to say whatever he wants without fear of reprisal, even if what he says is bat**** insane.

To eliminate Dr Oz from Columbia would set precedent to eliminate any other professor for any particular reason. That's not a precedent I'm comfortable setting.
 
Tired said:
He uses his position as a physician to promote products that he has a financial interest in. If that's unethical, medical schools across the country are going to need to fire the majority of their faculty.
Click to expand...

The critics' position is more substantial than that. Briefly, they believe that his claims have caused people to seek medical treatment with no evidence of discernible benefit, when they might have otherwise sought care with known benefit.

In any case, I'm not here to defend the critics or the merits of their argument. I'm not well informed enough on Dr. Oz's claims to do that. I'm saying that it's not only a discussion worth having, but that it's essential. It's not sufficient simply to ignore the conversation in the name of academic freedom, as Columbia University did, which is my point of criticism. Physicians, to include those employed by universities, have duties beyond the free exchange of information. In this case, primum non nocere is the principle in question, and we can't adequately assess its application/misapplication if we just throw up our hands and claim "academic discourse".
 
colbgw02 said:
The critics' position is more substantial than that. Briefly, they believe that his claims have caused people to seek medical treatment with no evidence of discernible benefit, when they might have otherwise sought care with known benefit.

In any case, I'm not here to defend the critics or the merits of their argument. I'm not well informed enough on Dr. Oz's claims to do that. I'm saying that it's not only a discussion worth having, but that it's essential. It's not sufficient simply to ignore the conversation in the name of academic freedom, as Columbia University did, which is my point of criticism. Physicians, to include those employed by universities, have duties beyond the free exchange of information. In this case, primum non nocere is the principle in question, and we can't adequately assess its application/misapplication if we just throw up our hands and claim "academic discourse".
Click to expand...

The university did not take a "do no harm" oath. To throw their hands up and claim "academic discourse" is precisely what they are supposed to do.

The licensing bodies and physician professional associations do not have their hands tied in such a way. Which leads me to my next question: is Dr Oz licensed to practice? Is he a member of his professional specialty organization?
 
To be fair, there are peeps who WANT to come to Columbia to be under his presence. Especially all the CT surg nurses who want to fawn over him 😛
 
...
 
Last edited:
Tired said:
Physicians don't really buy into academic freedom and the traditions of liberal education. we are, at root, fascists. And that's exactly why universities need to stand up for guys like Oz, no matter how big of a turd he is.
Click to expand...

You abuse the term fascist.

We are a guild. Guilds provide protection for their members and the profession, in part by policing the standards of conduct of the profession.

Dr. Oz is not about academic freedom. He is not expounding controversial thoughts in the marketplace of ideas. He is a huckster pimping products in the public square. And he is using his background as a real doctor to lend credence to his shilling. That ought to concern those who affiliate with him, since he is cheapening their legitimacy along with his own.

Let's not pretend that this has anything to do with academic freedom, though. Columbia has not ousted him because he retains his wide popularity. That is the same reason the guild has not moved against him. Were he to stumble, as he nearly did in the green coffee fiasco, and lose popular support, I think you'd see actions taken against him very quickly indeed. If Columbia continues to support his freedom of speech and thought when his star finally falls, I will re-evaluate my opinion of the institution's present sincerity.
 
Tired said:
Columbia had no obligation to respond, much less stimulate a scientific discussion with people who approached them with invective.
Click to expand...

I hear your concerns and your points are well made.

For me, it comes down entirely to this: Is Columbia's support for him borne out of a respect for his intellectual freedom, or out of self-interest because his net effect on their PR is still positive? If he became more of a liability/embarrassment, would their position shift? Only time will answer that one for me, but my previous experiences with that institution and others like it give me the impression that there is an unspoken pragmatism at work beneath lip service to ideals.
 
Over9000 said:
The university did not take a "do no harm" oath. To throw their hands up and claim "academic discourse" is precisely what they are supposed to do.
Click to expand...

This is short-sighted. The university should care whether or not its faculty members are living up to the standards of their profession.
 
Tired said:
That's disingenuous. The letter was a request (or really, a demand) that the University terminate his employment. It was filled with inflammatory characterizations, many of which have been repeated by the signatories in subsequent media interviews. I don't think there is any way you could characterize this as an attempt to engage in discourse, much less a scientific examination of his claims.

I agree, if our field wants to talk about his claims, dismissing it as academic freedom is inappropriate. But this wasn't that. It was a demand that an individual be fired, made mainly by people unaffiliated with the institution. Columbia had no obligation to reapond, much less stimulate a scientific discussion with people who approached them with invective.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not here to defend the critics. I'm here to point out the Columbia should have responded in a different manner. If they felt that the letter's content was inflammatory and inappropriate, then they could have said as much. Or, they could have just kept their mouth shut.
 
...
 
Last edited:
colbgw02 said:
This is short-sighted. The university should care whether or not its faculty members are living up to the standards of their profession.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The university should care that the general discourse of academic freedom is maintained, which is a long view. Whether a guild's member conforms to the generally held beliefs (or even basic scientific sense) of that particular guild is not the problem of the university.

The last thing any university needs is the stifling of expression from its tenured faculty. Not only is that preposterous and defeats the entire purpose of a university, you can bet that Columbia would be standing alone in that, which would essentially scare off any top talent to competing institutions. Who'd want to get tenure at Columbia when it could be easily revoked because a few of your colleagues don't like you?

Oz is a very enterprising man who is abusing his credentials for fame and fortune. He is not unique in our profession. He just happens to be the best at it. That's something we need to consider.

Furthermore, where are the surgical colleges and license boards in regards to this quack?
 
The point that will forever live in infamy from this thread, the true high yield "that examiners love to go after" (love you Dr. S!):
Promethean said:
Your point is sound, but you meant alchemy. Metallurgy is legit materials science. Uniting the male and female principles in the quest for the philosopher's stone is alchemy. Or porn. Whatever.
Click to expand...

Yup, made my day for sure. 🙂 Ok, carry on my fellow scholars.
 
Tired said:
I think there's two separate issues.

(1) His claims - yeah, green coffee beans probably don't help you lose weight. But these supplement studies frequently run in-house studies where an uncontrolled cohort uses their pills, gets a free gym membership, and lose 3lbs. Now there's "clinical evidence." Or they do stuff in a lab that shows some mild influence on some cell, and now they have "laboratory studies" that show a potential metabolic effect. None of this is good enough for the FDA, but plenty good enough for marketing. So yeah, I agree there's no real evidence, but guaranteed there is this kind of stuff.

(2) He makes a lot of money off his claims - I think this is what really pissed our field off. They feel like he's exploiting people, and maybe he is. But we don't want to get too deep into this, because then the public might start examining the relationships between industry and most of the "well-respected" surgeons who signed this letter. So they focus on his actual claims...

For me it's simple: universities are an open forum, and content of speech should never be a basis for adverse actions. There are many, many examples of surgeons who said and did thongs considered crazy or dangerous or exploitative by their peers, who were targeted, who were threatened with loss of their license or position; then later they were proved right. I got to hear someone like this talk a few months ago, and it was compelling.

Physicians don't really buy into academic freedom and the traditions of liberal education. we are, at root, fascists. And that's exactly why universities need to stand up for guys like Oz, no matter how big of a turd he is.
Click to expand...
i'm very liberal and a 1st amendment absolutist, but i disagree that universities (particularly private ones) have any duty to protect speech at all costs. would you support columbia retaining oz if he were to make, say, blatantly racist statements? the line has to be drawn somewhere. oz is on their medical staff and represents the school and university; if columbia determined that oz was behaving unethically and was making them look bad, i see no issue with terminating their affiliation with him
 
Vain Brother said:
i'm very liberal and a 1st amendment absolutist, but i disagree that universities (particularly private ones) have any duty to protect speech at all costs. would you support columbia retaining oz if he were to make, say, blatantly racist statements? the line has to be drawn somewhere. oz is on their medical staff and represents the school and university; if columbia determined that oz was behaving unethically and was making them look bad, i see no issue with terminating their affiliation with him
Click to expand...

I am unsure of the constitutional interpretation on this issue with regards to academic freedom, but it is my belief that institutions, especially private institutions have freedom of speech rights themselves. If Columbia wishes not to associate with the each of Dr. Oz, as these letter writers are demanding, then they can do so by either publicly denouncing some of his non university work or through terminating his employment and association with the mission of the school. I have no issue with people resquesting that Columbia chooses this road. I certainly look down upon their medical school for employeeing Dr. Oz, and if others do so also then his employment might be impeding upon the medical schools speech. However, Columbia also has the right to tell the letter writers to go to shut up.
 
If Oz has been objectively lying or falsifying data, then I dont see why columbia couldn't give him the boot just like they would boot some law professor that was discovered to have been plagiarizing a bunch of stuff. But if he isn't actually doing something indisputably dishonest, then hard to kick out a tenured professor. However, they could very easily remove him from other roles like being the vice chair because he is making the university look bad.

Edit- Also in general this shows how medicine is kind of an odd field in the universe of general academia. I think a lot of places recognize this and tenure very few physicians because it really is a different model.
 
Oz should be protected under the free speech amendment. All future pioneering doctors are threatened if Columbia removes Oz. We also have to remember that there are a lot of conflicts of interest in medicine. If a researcher comes up with a study that runs contrary to what industry likes (eg smoking causes cancer), industry can try whatever means they want to ruin the researchers life. The easiest tactic is try to get said researcher fired.

There is already speculation about the real reason this letter was written to Columbia. Oz recently ran an expose on the toxicities of glyphosate. This as upset some powerful people. Most of the physicians who signed the letter have strong ties to biotech, agriculture, and other industrial powerhouses. There is likely an ulterior motive for this letter, even though it plays in sympathy with those who despise quackery.

It is already difficult to run studies that look at toxic exposure from industrial products. Few people like to run contrary to those who pay for their grants. Academic integrity and freedom needs to be preserved even if it enables a few quacks. Quacks will usually self-destruct eventually anyway.
 
Tired said:
I also find it amusing that this was the worst hypothetical you could come up with. I would also support them retaining Dr. Oz if he promoted eating babies, drowning puppies, or criticizing Ronald Reagan. I'm guessing you're around 17-19 years old, a freshman in college, and think racism is just about the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of anything. Trust me, there are far worse things.
Click to expand...

I think it's time for me to invoke Godwin's Law.

Hypothetically, what if Dr. Oz promoted genocide of a certain group(s) of people (e.g. Holocaust)? Where are we drawing the line on academic freedom or do we draw a line at all?
 
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/handbook/obligations.html

Columbia's academic freedom policy. The policy guarantees that employees will not be penalized for expressions of opinion or associations in their private or civic capacity.
Oz's words are merely opinions. They might be wrong, but he should be protected by Columbia's own freedom policy.
 
Tired said:
The remainder of your post demonstrates otherwise.



If you really don't believe that, you lack a fundamental understanding of 220+ years of the tradition and theory of liberal education in America.

Universities' protection of speech by tenured faculty has, at various times, earned them the hatred of the military, assorted advocacy groups, and politicians of all political stripes. It operated during the pacifist/isolationist movements in World Wars I & II, the anti-war movement in the Vietnam-era, the McCarthy hearings in the 50s, and on and on. University administrators have risked a great deal, both personally and professionally, standing up for unpleasant people with unpopular opinions.

They do this because, in the long run, our nation is stronger when there is a protected space that tolerates all opinions.



Yes.

I also find it amusing that this was the worst hypothetical you could come up with. I would also support them retaining Dr. Oz if he promoted eating babies, drowning puppies, or criticizing Ronald Reagan. I'm guessing you're around 17-19 years old, a freshman in college, and think racism is just about the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of anything. Trust me, there are far worse things.



The fact that you would casually associate the two bolded statements suggests to me that you have a lot more learning to do.
Click to expand...
honestly i hesitate to even dignify this bizarrely hostile response with another reply, but suffice it to say i'm a pretty bright guy (and well out of my teens, thank you) and have thought pretty hard about the issues we're talking about. i'm the guy who thinks brandenburg is one of the best SC cases we have. believe me, i'm pretty pro-free speech. but i can separate unpopular speech's legal repercussions from its social ones, and the status of one's private employment falls into the latter camp for me. clearly you feel that being associated with a university should confer some sort of absolute protection from the repercussions of behaving unethically in one's professional capacity; as someone big on principles and absolutisms, i can respect that, though i disagree.

the history of universities supporting the speech of their faculty you cite are all examples of things i support! i see a stark difference between having opinions out of fashion with the federal government (like in your examples) and actively profiting from unethical behavior unbecoming to the profession he belongs to and the university he represents
 
MatCauthon said:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/handbook/obligations.html

Columbia's academic freedom policy. The policy guarantees that employees will not be penalized for expressions of opinion or associations in their private or civic capacity.
Oz's words are merely opinions. They might be wrong, but he should be protected by Columbia's own freedom policy.
Click to expand...
They're more than opinions, they are marketing pitches that endanger lives so that companies can sell supplements.
 
Last edited:
Vain Brother said:
honestly i hesitate to even dignify this bizarrely hostile response with another reply, but suffice it to say i'm a pretty bright guy (and well out of my teens, thank you) and have thought pretty hard about the issues we're talking about. i'm the guy who thinks brandenburg is one of the best SC cases we have. believe me, i'm pretty pro-free speech. but i can separate unpopular speech's legal repercussions from its social ones, and the status of one's private employment falls into the latter camp for me. clearly you feel that being associated with a university should confer some sort of absolute protection from the repercussions of behaving unethically in one's professional capacity; as someone big on principles and absolutisms, i can respect that, though i disagree.

the history of universities supporting the speech of their faculty you cite are all examples of things i support! i see a stark difference between having opinions out of fashion with the federal government (like in your examples) and actively profiting from unethical behavior unbecoming to the profession he belongs to and the university he represents
Click to expand...

you said you were absolutist 1st amendment, then spent the rest of the post talking about situations where you thought the 1st amendment didn't apply. I don't know what to tell you if you can't see the irony in that.
 
MatCauthon said:
Oz should be protected under the free speech amendment. All future pioneering doctors are threatened if Columbia removes Oz. We also have to remember that there are a lot of conflicts of interest in medicine. If a researcher comes up with a study that runs contrary to what industry likes (eg smoking causes cancer), industry can try whatever means they want to ruin the researchers life. The easiest tactic is try to get said researcher fired.

There is already speculation about the real reason this letter was written to Columbia. Oz recently ran an expose on the toxicities of glyphosate. This as upset some powerful people. Most of the physicians who signed the letter have strong ties to biotech, agriculture, and other industrial powerhouses. There is likely an ulterior motive for this letter, even though it plays in sympathy with those who despise quackery.

It is already difficult to run studies that look at toxic exposure from industrial products. Few people like to run contrary to those who pay for their grants. Academic integrity and freedom needs to be preserved even if it enables a few quacks. Quacks will usually self-destruct eventually anyway.
Click to expand...
Dr. Oz had the potential to harm millions, if not tens of millions through his bull**** claims. He shouldn't just be kicked out of Columbia, he should lose his license.
 
Tired said:
Barring some investigation showing illegal/unethical conduct, I can't think of a case where a tenured faculty member has been dismissed on the basis of their opinions. They may be out there, but I can think of many more like this case where, despite despicable speech, the person is retained and shielded. We can guess at the institutional motivations, but for me as long as they are doing the right thing, I don't care whey they are doing it.

If you ever get the chance to hear Dr. Breidenbach (Hand Surgery, University of Arizona) talk, I highly recommend it. He did the first successful hand transplant in the world (2nd total, after a French group screwed up the first one). He faced nearly identical threats, with outside surgeons asking for him to be fired and his license revoked. At the time, there were many intelligent surgeons with well-reasoned arguments on why he was a quack who was going to cause harm or death to patients with his proposal to electively transplant an extremity. Fast forward 25 years, there are now more than 100 people around the world who have had a hand transplant (including several of my young Marine/Army brothers who lost them in combat) and he's a highly respected world leader in his field.

I would protect a 100 guys like Mehmet Oz to ensure that we don't hurt someone like Warren Breidenbach.
Click to expand...
He was kind of questioned by Congress about his unethical behavior. I'd think that would be enough to get him to lose his tenure.
 
...
 
Last edited:
PL198 said:
you said you were absolutist 1st amendment, then spent the rest of the post talking about situations where you thought the 1st amendment didn't apply. I don't know what to tell you if you can't see the irony in that.
Click to expand...
the first amendment applies to government repercussions against speech, not those by an employer or other social consequences

(incidentally i see @Tired liked this post even though he made the same argument a couple of posts above, which is puzzling)
 
Tired said:
Congress questions a lot of people, and makes all sorts of accusations, most of which are of dubious intelligence and value. Truly unethical behavior, as determined by a university or medical board investigation, has not been proven (or even investigated, as far as I know). In such a case, I would definitely support his ouster. But right now, all we've got is that Stanford surgeons don't like the stuff he says.
Click to expand...
He openly admitted his claims were dubious and that he was nothing more than an entertainer, basically. But his entertainment has the potential to kill by virtue of his credibility as a physician, so he should choose- snake oil salesman or doctor, because you can't be both.
 
Mad Jack said:
Dr. Oz had the potential to harm millions, if not tens of millions through his bull**** claims. He shouldn't just be kicked out of Columbia, he should lose his license.
Click to expand...

I think you need specific incidences of patient harm and malpractice to take away his license. The show has disclaimers that it does not provide medical advice, just like any other medical article, show, book in the public arena. Tons of doctors are writing books about alternative subjects and selling missions of copies. Are you going to take away their licenses too? That is a slippery slope as many pioneering theories are reviled by medicine before they are eventually accepted. Columbia would likely lose a lawsuit against Dr. Oz if they had him removed. It could create lots of bad PR for them.
 
...
 
Last edited:
Tired said:
Why not? He has a code of ethics for both his license and his faculty position, yet neither have accused him of wrong-doing. Yes, he uses hyperbole and inflated adjectives to describe minor scientific findings. He is obnoxious and makes a lot of money.

Look, again, I'm not arguing he's a great guy or a great doctor. But his un-likeability doesn't mean he should lose his faculty appointment.
Click to expand...
He's sacrificed his credibility for cash. That is the second greatest sin a physician can commit, in my opinion. Putting profit ahead of your patients and possibly doing harm (as they neglect conventional treatment for snake oil) is a perfectly good reason for a physician to lose their appointment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Dismissal Advice
Replies
5
Views
2K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
M
seeking advice: Appealing a Dismissal
Replies
8
Views
2K
Drjc1977
D
I
Facing dismissal need some insight (USMD) it’s actually crazy
Replies
27
Views
2K
Taddy Mason
Taddy Mason
S
Can't see signal yield data for DR in residency explorer?
Replies
0
Views
369
swamip
S
T
dismissal
Replies
16
Views
3K
TelemarketingEnigma
TelemarketingEnigma
Top