Re-visiting the Doctor

It's just gone down hill since I wrote about Dr. Oz in Don't Talk to Me like I'm Four

Since I wrote that, I've attempted a few more viewings and have about given up. Today I just changed the channel. A few more irks finally made me do it. Let's discuss:

Nothing smacks of being bought quite like the freebies that were rampant last week (sweeps, anyone?). Usually, any of the hundred assistants of the day (we’ll get to that in a minute) gets to keep some little token (basket of oranges, bottle of vitamins, etc.) gift that has to do with the segment that they just covered and “assisted” with. But all last week, Dr. Oz spent his episodes highlighting various products that do this, that, or the other to improve health or hygiene, and then he would (no-longer surprisingly) announce that everyone in the audience was getting one. Such an Oprah-esque move was so gratuitous that it was actually embarrassing to watch. “Let’s see, how shall I buy more fans today?” I’ve always cringed at the purchase of people’s attention via gifts and prizes. It just feels so cheap. These were no longer simple bottles of multivitamins but, rather, complex electronic equipment or visits to spas.

I think what really rubbed me the wrong way, though, was the blatant endorsement of commercial products. This really sat heavily with me. Doctors are supposed to be neutral, un-invested and non-judgmental. I have no problem with him talking about adding avocados to my repertoire of snacks. I’m glad to know that my love of beans is encouraged by a doctor. I even appreciate knowing which kinds of vitamins and supplements are best for me and in what combinations. But the moment specific products - name-brand products – are being hocked by anyone, there is clearly a vested interest in the exchange. Free advertising for the company, financial gain for the show’s production. I no longer feel warm and fuzzy.

As for the assistant of the day, I believe I mentioned that there is rarely any segment anymore that doesn’t require “assistance” from an audience member. So I find it perplexing when, by the time we’re 40 minutes into the show and have seen 12 audience members participate in some way or another, Dr. Oz announces that he will now select his Assistant of the Day for the next segment. For the life of me, I can’t seem to distinguish the difference between this person and all the others that have gone before her or which come after.

This would be a good time, by the way, to mention that some of the women who participate in the various segments (Assistant of the Day or not) are clearly coached to respond to questions in a way that will prompt the appropriate dialog and move the “plot” along. Again, I find this embarrassing for everyone involved. There is usually some bad acting involved, or some leading questions. The whole thing comes of as so contrived that all I keep coming back to is that these set ups aren’t even necessary. What ever happened to the straight-forward approach? There is information to impart. Impart it and move on to something else.

Speaking of imparting information, I have one final grievance. As I mentioned, we expect a certain neutrality from our doctors. I want to know that if and when there is an issue to address, my doctor will give me the facts and not throw alarmist puzzles my way. Socially speaking, we tend to hold doctors in an unfailing light, benevolent and looking out for our best interests. Medically speaking, they are supposed to be our safety nets. They follow news with a plan of action and words of hope and level-headedness. But doctors on TV have a different purpose. They are no longer primarily the voice of comfort but, instead, the voice of alarm. Dr. Oz’s position as a show host overrides his position as a doctor so that his primary concern is to accrue viewers. This is done by designing commercials or teasers between segments that sound like apocalyptical warnings. “Are you at danger for ovarian cancer? Up next, five symptoms you may be ignoring.” Or, “Three deadly toxins in your home and how you can prevent tragedy in 5 simple steps.” Geez. Fatalist much? The flip side is similar but at the opposite end of the spectrum, building false hope: “Lose weight in 5 minutes” or “Five magic foods that will burn fat.” Of course, those five minutes refer to only one set of strenuous exercise, which added to the other 4 sets are now 25 minutes and there’s nothing new about this information. And the five magic foods are your basic metabolism boosters which also have to be used in conjunction with a sensible diet and exercise. We know this. But the wording is leading. It’s isolated so it looks as though this one bit of information can work in exclusion of any other factors. I’m offended to think that anyone should think I’m so clueless as not to notice that there wasn’t really anything new imparted.

This weekend, I bought the book by said Dr. Oz and his trusty colleague, Dr. Roisen, You: Staying Young. I buy it knowing that I’m getting old like everyone else on the planet and I have no problem with that. My interest is in maintaining my health as well as I can. I liked the other book of theirs that I purchased years ago and have adopted much of what is covered in it, although I’m in no way the compass for trim and healthy ideals. As in all information, you take what you need or what you can deal with at the moment and chose to be proactive about bits and pieces at a time. I’m going to continue to change my patterns and habits little by little, no drastic changes for me. I like having the information so that I can put it to use as I become ready to do so.

Yet another example of books being better imparters of information than TV.