Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Should Oprah Winfrey be held somewhat.....

Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 10:08:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
accountable for promoting Dr.Oz and his unethical dieting advice?

This is in regards to Dr.Oz's appearance before the U.S. Senate in order to be questioned about his dieting ideas he has been promoting to everyone.

Here is a link to his appearance before the U.S. Senate if you haven't seen it:

http://www.c-span.org...

Let's discuss the controversy..
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 11:00:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 10:08:06 AM, Haroush wrote:
accountable for promoting Dr.Oz and his unethical dieting advice?

This is in regards to Dr.Oz's appearance before the U.S. Senate in order to be questioned about his dieting ideas he has been promoting to everyone.

Here is a link to his appearance before the U.S. Senate if you haven't seen it:

http://www.c-span.org...

Let's discuss the controversy..

Not a chance....unless you believe that a retailer should be held accountable for a vendor's bad product?
Who sells this product in question? GNC? Walgreens? CVS? They are actually more responsible, given they are advocating the product as a whole, not just someone who happens to endorse it. (can I not promote Dr. Oz for his abilities as a doctor, assuming they exist?)

As far as the product endorsement goes, the issue is whether he, as a doctor, should have known better. There are doctors out there that believe X, when X is not recognized by "authorities".
My work here is, finally, done.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 1:05:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 11:00:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 10:08:06 AM, Haroush wrote:
accountable for promoting Dr.Oz and his unethical dieting advice?

This is in regards to Dr.Oz's appearance before the U.S. Senate in order to be questioned about his dieting ideas he has been promoting to everyone.

Here is a link to his appearance before the U.S. Senate if you haven't seen it:

http://www.c-span.org...

Let's discuss the controversy..

Not a chance....unless you believe that a retailer should be held accountable for a vendor's bad product?

Personally, I think this is a logic fallacy since Oprah Winfrey has much more responsibility as famous as she is. Therefore, being ethical is much more of an importance for her versus GNC.

For example, GNC would be able to promote a product from a vendor as long as they NOTE on the product it hasn't been <b> FDA approved </b> . Where as, Oprah Winfrey
(being a well respected entrepreneur) promoting a doctor such as Dr.Oz who tends to
NOT consult with FDA regulations would be unethical for her, in return causing harm to
her viewers and depleting her credibility(trust) with her viewers.

This in turn would mean, she is AT LEAST somewhat responsible for these peoples'
medical issues they developed from listening to someone she <b>promoted</b> as being a very knowledgeable doctor who her audience should listen to for medical
advice regarding their health.

Who sells this product in question? GNC? Walgreens? CVS? They are actually more responsible, given they are advocating the product as a whole, not just someone who happens to endorse it. (can I not promote Dr. Oz for his abilities as a doctor, assuming they exist?)

Comment above this one.

As far as the product endorsement goes, the issue is whether he, as a doctor, should have known better. There are doctors out there that believe X, when X is not recognized by "authorities".

The problem with the logic here regarding this specific case is that, it was already scientifically proven these products he was endorsing had dangerous side effects which he didn't mention while endorsing them. Presenting a great danger to all of his
audience's health if they were to listen to him. Which many did because many people
aren't educated and tend to trust those who are well respected by someone they love
like Oprah Winfrey.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 1:20:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 1:05:11 PM, Haroush wrote:
So, someone has more responsibility simply because they are more famous?
The stores can sell whatever harmful product they want, but heaven forbid someone talks about how great OVERALL someone else is.

Did Oprah promote this product?
Did she promote Dr. Oz solely for this product, at any time?
Did Oprah know this product was dangerous?
Did Oprah benefit from this deception?
If the answer is no to any of these question, then why is she liable?

Is Oprah liable if she strokes someone's ego, and they commit a murder, because they are famous?

Now, explain again, why GNC is NOT liable for intentionally selling a dangerous product?
My work here is, finally, done.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 2:16:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 1:20:41 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 1:05:11 PM, Haroush wrote:
So, someone has more responsibility simply because they are more famous?
The stores can sell whatever harmful product they want, but heaven forbid someone talks about how great OVERALL someone else is.

Did Oprah promote this product?
Did she promote Dr. Oz solely for this product, at any time?
Did Oprah know this product was dangerous?
Did Oprah benefit from this deception?
If the answer is no to any of these question, then why is she liable?

Is Oprah liable if she strokes someone's ego, and they commit a murder, because they are famous?

Now, explain again, why GNC is NOT liable for intentionally selling a dangerous product?

How about I explain this to you...

If you are a principal of a school and have a teacher who is very intelligent, and presents intriguing information, but lacks the ethical value which is needed to meet your schools ethic standard, then you will probably consider
terminating their contract with your school correct? Or else if you don't, you will be held responsible for knowing about this teacher's ethical value and not addressing the issue before it became a big problem.

Therefore, if you are an executive of any kind, you are held responsible for any preventable problems that may have occurred in the past.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 3:00:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 2:16:13 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 6/21/2014 1:20:41 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 1:05:11 PM, Haroush wrote:
So, someone has more responsibility simply because they are more famous?
The stores can sell whatever harmful product they want, but heaven forbid someone talks about how great OVERALL someone else is.

Did Oprah promote this product?
Did she promote Dr. Oz solely for this product, at any time?
Did Oprah know this product was dangerous?
Did Oprah benefit from this deception?
If the answer is no to any of these question, then why is she liable?

Is Oprah liable if she strokes someone's ego, and they commit a murder, because they are famous?

Now, explain again, why GNC is NOT liable for intentionally selling a dangerous product?

How about I explain this to you...

If you are a principal of a school and have a teacher who is very intelligent, and presents intriguing information, but lacks the ethical value which is needed to meet your schools ethic standard, then you will probably consider
terminating their contract with your school correct? Or else if you don't, you will be held responsible for knowing about this teacher's ethical value and not addressing the issue before it became a big problem.

Therefore, if you are an executive of any kind, you are held responsible for any preventable problems that may have occurred in the past.

Oprah most likely pays to have her guests appear.
GNC pays to have a product in the store.
I see no fundamental difference.

This, of course, assumes that both Oprah is in charge of booking her guest, and that her show (or whereever) doesn't have a disclaimer that the views of the host are that of the show's, unless explicitly stated (like Oprah's book club).

Tell me, when Tom Cruise was going on and on about how psychological drugs are bad, is Oprah responsible for that, or any damage that Cruise fans may have done as a consequence for not (with prescription) treating depression.
My work here is, finally, done.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2014 4:13:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 3:00:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 2:16:13 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 6/21/2014 1:20:41 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 1:05:11 PM, Haroush wrote:
So, someone has more responsibility simply because they are more famous?
The stores can sell whatever harmful product they want, but heaven forbid someone talks about how great OVERALL someone else is.

Did Oprah promote this product?
Did she promote Dr. Oz solely for this product, at any time?
Did Oprah know this product was dangerous?
Did Oprah benefit from this deception?
If the answer is no to any of these question, then why is she liable?

Is Oprah liable if she strokes someone's ego, and they commit a murder, because they are famous?

Now, explain again, why GNC is NOT liable for intentionally selling a dangerous product?

How about I explain this to you...

If you are a principal of a school and have a teacher who is very intelligent, and presents intriguing information, but lacks the ethical value which is needed to meet your schools ethic standard, then you will probably consider
terminating their contract with your school correct? Or else if you don't, you will be held responsible for knowing about this teacher's ethical value and not addressing the issue before it became a big problem.

Therefore, if you are an executive of any kind, you are held responsible for any preventable problems that may have occurred in the past.

Oprah most likely pays to have her guests appear.
GNC pays to have a product in the store.
I see no fundamental difference.

This, of course, assumes that both Oprah is in charge of booking her guest, and that her show (or whereever) doesn't have a disclaimer that the views of the host are that of the show's, unless explicitly stated (like Oprah's book club).

Tell me, when Tom Cruise was going on and on about how psychological drugs are bad, is Oprah responsible for that, or any damage that Cruise fans may have done as a consequence for not (with prescription) treating depression.

The difference between Tom Cruise and Dr.Oz is Tom Cruise wasn't promoted where as Dr.Oz was as a credible doctor. To make matters worse she still promoted him even after some of his unethical dietary advice.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 11:08:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2014 4:13:54 PM, Haroush wrote:

The difference between Tom Cruise and Dr.Oz is Tom Cruise wasn't promoted where as Dr.Oz was as a credible doctor. To make matters worse she still promoted him even after some of his unethical dietary advice.

I guess my ultimate issue is two things:
1. Why does one bad act mean all credibility is lost, and, more importantly, make her liable?
2. What, exactly, is unethical? If Dr. Oz truly believes the pills work, how is it unethical? Just because his peers disagree, or the government wouldn't approve the studies, doesn't mean it isn't, on balance, good.

How does one disagree with a majority, in your world?
My work here is, finally, done.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 2:37:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 11:08:51 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 4:13:54 PM, Haroush wrote:

The difference between Tom Cruise and Dr.Oz is Tom Cruise wasn't promoted where as Dr.Oz was as a credible doctor. To make matters worse she still promoted him even after some of his unethical dietary advice.

I guess my ultimate issue is two things:
1. Why does one bad act mean all credibility is lost, and, more importantly, make her liable?
2. What, exactly, is unethical? If Dr. Oz truly believes the pills work, how is it unethical? Just because his peers disagree, or the government wouldn't approve the studies, doesn't mean it isn't, on balance, good.

How does one disagree with a majority, in your world?

ethical : involving questions of right and wrong behavior : relating to ethics

http://www.ama-assn.org...

There is an ethics code ALL medical officials and people of different occupations must obey. Particularly, in the medical field this is very important. If there was no ethics code in medical practice or in advertising dietary products, people would be, being mislead to do things which would lead to unnecessary health problems, death, and other issues. Furthermore, without ethics, these professionals who commit these crimes would not be prosecuted for such acts worthy of prosecution.

If anyone is thinking in their own world it's you.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 3:12:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 2:37:14 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:08:51 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 4:13:54 PM, Haroush wrote:

The difference between Tom Cruise and Dr.Oz is Tom Cruise wasn't promoted where as Dr.Oz was as a credible doctor. To make matters worse she still promoted him even after some of his unethical dietary advice.

I guess my ultimate issue is two things:
1. Why does one bad act mean all credibility is lost, and, more importantly, make her liable?
2. What, exactly, is unethical? If Dr. Oz truly believes the pills work, how is it unethical? Just because his peers disagree, or the government wouldn't approve the studies, doesn't mean it isn't, on balance, good.

How does one disagree with a majority, in your world?

ethical : involving questions of right and wrong behavior : relating to ethics

http://www.ama-assn.org...

There is an ethics code ALL medical officials and people of different occupations must obey. Particularly, in the medical field this is very important. If there was no ethics code in medical practice or in advertising dietary products, people would be, being mislead to do things which would lead to unnecessary health problems, death, and other issues.
The labels state "the FDA does not recognize X benefit" or something to that effect. Are you suggesting that ONLY FDA drugs and/or board certified approved methods are to be EVER used by a doctor?

Furthermore, without ethics, these professionals who commit these crimes would not be prosecuted for such acts worthy of prosecution.
Doctors who are unethical are usually sued and/or sanctioned, not prosecuted.

If anyone is thinking in their own world it's you.

Let me rephrase:
What, exactly, was the unethical behavior?
You are aware ethics, even with a code, is gray, right?
Is pulling a plug ethical? The doctor is literally killing their patient.
Is prescribing or otherwise advising a risky treatment ethical?
Is offering someone an illegal drug (like marijuana) to ease pain unethical?

They are bound by ethics. Please, for the love of God, tell me exactly what he did.
Because it seems he approved of a drug that wasn't FDA approved.
If he believed the drug was good, and outweighed the risks, why is that unethical?
My work here is, finally, done.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 3:15:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 3:12:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/22/2014 2:37:14 PM, Haroush wrote:
At 6/22/2014 11:08:51 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/21/2014 4:13:54 PM, Haroush wrote:

The difference between Tom Cruise and Dr.Oz is Tom Cruise wasn't promoted where as Dr.Oz was as a credible doctor. To make matters worse she still promoted him even after some of his unethical dietary advice.

I guess my ultimate issue is two things:
1. Why does one bad act mean all credibility is lost, and, more importantly, make her liable?
2. What, exactly, is unethical? If Dr. Oz truly believes the pills work, how is it unethical? Just because his peers disagree, or the government wouldn't approve the studies, doesn't mean it isn't, on balance, good.

How does one disagree with a majority, in your world?

ethical : involving questions of right and wrong behavior : relating to ethics

http://www.ama-assn.org...

There is an ethics code ALL medical officials and people of different occupations must obey. Particularly, in the medical field this is very important. If there was no ethics code in medical practice or in advertising dietary products, people would be, being mislead to do things which would lead to unnecessary health problems, death, and other issues.
The labels state "the FDA does not recognize X benefit" or something to that effect. Are you suggesting that ONLY FDA drugs and/or board certified approved methods are to be EVER used by a doctor?

Furthermore, without ethics, these professionals who commit these crimes would not be prosecuted for such acts worthy of prosecution.
Doctors who are unethical are usually sued and/or sanctioned, not prosecuted.

If anyone is thinking in their own world it's you.

Let me rephrase:
What, exactly, was the unethical behavior?
You are aware ethics, even with a code, is gray, right?
Is pulling a plug ethical? The doctor is literally killing their patient.
Is prescribing or otherwise advising a risky treatment ethical?
Is offering someone an illegal drug (like marijuana) to ease pain unethical?

They are bound by ethics. Please, for the love of God, tell me exactly what he did.
Because it seems he approved of a drug that wasn't FDA approved.
If he believed the drug was good, and outweighed the risks, why is that unethical?

At this point you are completely trolling.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 5:28:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2014 3:15:06 PM, Haroush wrote:

At this point you are completely trolling.

I don't troll. Well, not in the evil kind of way of playing dumb.

I've asked you a few times now what he did. I am not watching a 8 minute video, nor am I going to do the necessary research to understand the other side for a topic which you clearly should have the most basic understanding of.

You started with saying that Oprah is responsible for bad advice.
I have made point after point of relevant counterpoints.
You have yet to answer the most basic of questions, and a premise that is absolutely necessary to form the opinion you have, and, frankly, the first question I should have asked.
What, exactly, has he done that is unethical?
Endorsing a program/pill that he believes has merit is not unethical. Explain why.

If you are not going to explain why what he did is unethical, and merely state it is, then don't bother responding.
My work here is, finally, done.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:42:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, she is part of Hollywood and Hollywood knows what is best for everyone
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 2:34:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 7:42:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
No, she is part of Hollywood and Hollywood knows what is best for everyone

I know right!
MichaelColton
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 4:14:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
She should be embarrassed and it should hurt her reputation, but there certainly should be no literal accountability.