When I first read this article, all I could think of was the whale scrotum leather-covered barstools that Aristotle Onassis had in his villa on Skorpios. I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself!

Originally Posted by DC-Cutie

Dr. Oz needs to rethink his medical ethics. He won't provide the surgery for the man UNLESS he retains all rights to his story. But on the other hand, this man wants to walk around with a 100 lb scrotum is a fool for not getting the surgery because 'it's made him famous'..

I'm with you. Obviosuly no bigger fame whore than Dr OZ. Don't doctors take an oath to put the patient first over money? He has nothing!.

This gentlemen lives in Vegas. so we've had several TV news/paper reports on him.
He had no insurance, he couldn't work cause of his condition. (I believe he was homeless for awhile.) He's gotten a lot of exposure & has been on Howard Stern etc. I'm guessing he's being paid or at least they are covering his fees to travel.
Its been reported that having this surgery could kill him, He could bleed to death etc. He might even lose another vital part in that area. (Don't remember if I read this surgery hasn't been done before or very rarely.)

Onassis - always feel when men use large animal p#nis parts they are trying to make up for their own 'shortcomings.' Do women decide to cover bar stools with animal penis skin? Never heard of this occurring.

^ Even one of Onassis' mistresses said he looked like a toad. Cruel, but that's quite a short-coming.

i think he should wear a big skirt

Originally Posted by Vegas Long Legs

I'm with you. Obviosuly no bigger fame whore than Dr OZ. Don't doctors take an oath to put the patient first over money? He has nothing!.

I dont see a problem with Dr Oz wanting the story on his show in return for surgery.
Hospital stays and sugery expenses are extremely expensive.
Why should Dr Oz give up something for free (and will cost him and his show thousands and thousands of dollars) and expect nothing in return just because he is a doctor?
Im being realistic here, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

How many people have medical conditions that go untreated because they dont have the insurance or funds? Should all the doctors treat everyone for free?
Moral and ethical obligations do not put food on the table... but thats the world we live in.

This is one of those tragic stories of which one gets the sense that no one is really telling the full story. Who knows what conditions the Dr. Oz offer included? He most likely wanted to film the surgery and a lot of the recovery process. The surgery might be filmed for both talk show (and Internet) purposes as well as medical instructional (and Internet) purposes. The latter is often done in these situations. Perhaps the man objected to that?

Perhaps there were other restrictions about where he was to stay and what he would be permitted to do during rehabilitation that he did not care to follow. A friend who did medical care for the homeless said that was the greatest difficulty in providing care for this population. Even if you got them free care, free medicine, suitable housing for recovery, etc. they often did not follow doctors' orders and that made everything very dicey. Especially any kind of surgical intervention.

Irregardless, beware of TV talk shows bearing gifts is what I always say.

Despite the grave risks of the surgery, I'm sure the risks are even greater if the man does not have the surgery. Including risks of life-threatening infection and hemorrhage. Very sad.

Originally Posted by Ratnapur

When I first read this article, all I could think of was the whale scrotum leather-covered barstools that Aristotle Onassis had in his villa on Skorpios. I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself!

No, you couldn't. I heard that man was absolutely vile. Princess Grace of Monoco and her husband refused to entertain him as a house guest, although they were forced to regularly socialize with him for political reasons since he controlled resorts and waterways. Still they found him boorish and generally skin-crawling-ly horrible.

Originally Posted by quackedup

I dont see a problem with Dr Oz wanting the story on his show in return for surgery. Hospital stays and sugery expenses are extremely expensive. Why should Dr Oz give up something for free (and will cost him and his show thousands and thousands of dollars) and expect nothing in return just because he is a doctor? Im being realistic here, there is no such thing as a free lunch. How many people have medical conditions that go untreated because they dont have the insurance or funds? Should all the doctors treat everyone for free? Moral and ethical obligations do not put food on the table... but thats the world we live in.

Now one ever said anything about doctors treating everyone for free. Where was that addressed?

Of course he wants the story on his show. That is not the issue. The issue is he wants total control of this guys story. If the guy writes a book, OZ get it all rights to it.

OZ has a TV show. All the costs are donated or a write off to the show. The man has absolutely nothing but his condition. The show makes plenty of money as it is. When you are in business, there are going to be expenses one expects to incur. This show would be a hugely watched show. Oz is getting something for the money they spend on the show.

Its not about Oz being a doctor, its about exploitation of a potentially fatal condition. Beyond what would be normal.

And its a violation of the Hypocratic oath which doctors take & are to abide by In order to use the title Doctor..

Originally Posted by DC-Cutie

Dr. Oz needs to rethink his medical ethics. He won't provide the surgery for the man UNLESS he retains all rights to his story. .

That's just NASTY! I mean, the guy is peeing all over himself, and if one of your reasons for not having it corrected is because HOWARD STERN wants to see him again, maybe you're just the idiot to keep that nasty thing.