James W. Holsinger, Jr.

On May 24, 2007, President Bush nominated Dr. James W. Holsinger, Jr., a University of Kentucky medical professor, to be the 18th surgeon general of the United States. At the press release to announce the nomination, Bush stated, "As America's chief health educator, he will be charged with providing the best scientific information available on how Americans can make smart choices that improve their health and reduce their risk of illness and injury. Dr. Holsinger will particularly focus his efforts on educating parents and children about childhood obesity, a serious epidemic that decreases quality of life and burdens our healthcare system. I am confident that Dr. Holsinger will help our Nation confront this challenge and many others to ensure that Americans live longer, better, and healthier lives."

Anytime George Bush says "I am confident" of anything, we have reason to be skeptical about his predictions. According to Wikipedia (which is not always an accurate source, I do admit), Dr. Holsinger is a member of the United Methodist Church. Now, there is nothing wrong with being a Methodist, or being a member of any religion for that matter. The problem is if you are serving in a position where you are representative to all Americans, you cannot use your personal beliefs against (or for) any Americans over any other Americans.

For example, if your personal religion is that you're a Buddhist, and as a Buddhist you're also a vegetarian, you cannot try to pass legislation against eating meat based on your beliefs. You can introduce legislation if there is a valid health reason against the particular meat (importing beef that might be infected with Mad Cow Disease, for example), but not based on your personal religious beliefs.

Why does this matter in the issue of appointing Dr. Holsinger as Surgeon General? Well, he not only belongs to the Methodist church, but has also sat on its Judicial Council. In fact, he resigned the council over the issue of homosexuality (which he opposes):

The (Methodist) church's panel on homosexuality is stirring a ruckus even before its report is written. James Holsinger, medical director of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, quit the study committee last February because he felt certain its conclusions would follow liberal lines.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973264-4,00.html

After leaving the panel, he continued with the church, and helped to found a new congregation called Hope Springs Community Church in Kentucky. Rev. David Calhoun is the pastor of Hope Springs. According to Calhoun:

"Hope Springs also ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian," Calhoun said.
"We see that as an issue not of orientation but of lifestyle," he said. "We have people who seek to walk out of that lifestyle." On this point, the church would differ with many gays and lesbians, who consider their sexuality a matter of identity, not a lifestyle choice.

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/85442.html

This becomes a bit disturbing. In his announcement of the nomination, Bush stated, "he will be charged with providing the best scientific information available on how Americans can make smart choices that improve their health and reduce their risk of illness and injury." Yet he began a ministry that works to stop homosexuals from being gay. Is that finding consistent with the "best scientific information available"?

According to the American Psychiatric Association:

"The APA Board of Trustees endorsed a position statement at its December (1998) meeting that opposes therapeutic techniques some psychiatrists and mental health professionals claim can shift an individual's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The Board acknowledged that there is no evidence that these so-called 'reparative therapies' have any efficacy in converting someone from one sexual orientation to another."

http://www.psych.org/pnews/99-01-15/therapy.html

If Dr. Holsinger is against homosexuality, and started a ministry to help change gays to straight, which the American Psychiatric Association states cannot be done, then I don't see that he will be providing the best scientific information available. He seems to be doing just the opposite when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, therefore, will he do the same with other issues? What about stem cell research? Is he going to follow conservative views on that issue as well?

I have to question the logic of appointing this man into the position of "America's Doctor" given his views. I'm sure Bush can do a better job of finding someone to fill this position who can represent all Americans, not just the right wing.