<p>From Netscape:</p>
<p>"Last week, President Bush nominated James W. Holsinger to become the next Surgeon General of the United States…</p>
<p>But as BarbinMD points out, Holsingers nomination to be Americas doctor is troubling. He has a long history of prejudice toward gays and lesbians. Some examples: </p>
<p> Holsinger founded Hope Springs Community Church, which ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian. Holsinger said that he sees homosexuality as an issue not of orientation but of lifestyle. [Lexington Herald-Leader, 6/1/07]</p>
<p> In serving on the United Methodist Judicial Council the court that resolves disputes involving church doctrine and policies in the nations second-largest Protestant denomination Holsinger opposed a decision to allow a practicing lesbian to be an associate pastor, and he supported a pastor who would not permit an openly gay man to join the church. [Lexington Herald-Leader, 6/1/07]</p>
<p><a href=“News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com”>News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com;
<p> In the early 1990s, Holsinger resigned from the United Methodist Churchs Committee to Study Homosexuality because he believed the committee would follow liberal lines. He also warned that acceptance of homosexuality would drive away millions of churchgoers. [Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 5/26/07; Time, 6/24/91]</p>
<p>Okay, assuming all of that is accurate, I personally think the guy is a pr!ck. My question, however, is whether this (meaning the news above, not my personal opinion) diminishes his ability to serve as Surgeon General.</p>
<p>It’s a sincere question. If, for instance, this guy prays over patients instead of delivering medical advice or subordinates medical decisions to religious issues, then that would be a problem. If, again hypothetically speaking, he won’t support AIDS research because it might interfere with God’s plan to eradicate homosexuals, that would be a problem. Or if he believes that gays are “illegal” under God’s law and refuses to afford them medical care or services or medication…that, too, would be a problem.</p>
<p>I can envision numerous ways that his religious convictions about homosexuals could get in the way of his service to the nation as the Surgeon General. But it’s all just speculation and wild conjecture at this point, isn’t it? </p>
<p>Is there anything that actually and directly connects his religious life and convictions to his medical career that should be cause for alarm? Though I disagree with his religious views (the ones stated above), do they – in and of themselves – disqualify him from serving as Surgeon General? Why?</p>
<p>I don’t know all that’s required of the Surgeon General and I could be overlooking something obvious, but while I think it’s worth learning more, to see if there’s something more relevant going on in light of this background, maybe I’m missing a clearcut reason that disqualifies him on the basis of what we already know.</p>
<p>Good post, D’yer. I’d like to see whether there’s any information about his medical treatment of GLBT individuals or GLBT related medicine. I have a feeling that his medical opinions on these matters would be affected by his personal feelings instead of by commonly accepted medical viewpoints, but I can’t be sure. I’d like to see a history.</p>
<p>We do know about his dismal record as a VA administrator. Patients died of neglect. His record as a Kentucky administrator was just as bad. At the end of his tenure, Kentucky was dead last in just about every measure of health care.</p>
<p>What?! A Bush appointee who is anti-gay/lesbian?! Who ever heard of such a thing?!</p>
<p>Let me guess, he’s anti-birth control too…</p>
<p>let me see, well, medically and scientifically its pretty much been established that being homosexual is the way a person is made, and the surgeon generals “beliefs” are that is not true and the prayer and whatever can fix 'em</p>
<p>sounds like a pretty obvious medical issue to me</p>
<p>Hey, it’s not easy finding Surgeon Generals who are against condom use these days. I’m sure this guy will be just another loyal bushie doin’ a heckuva job.</p>
<p>I just generally find it odd that someone who is in the medical position to become surgeon general would have such a record. I mean it’s (obviously) not impossible, but a little odd, maybe to be so completely open about it. I wouldn’t doubt there are plenty of medical doctors who believe as he does, but generally even if education doesn’t completely fight prejudice, it at least teaches people that the climate is such they should keep their ideas to very limited people. So it’s interesting, considering most of that community doesn’t really promote the “homosexuality as a lifestyle choice” strand of thought.</p>