July 22, 2003
To Grow or Not to Grow - Is That the Question? ... Let's take five with Moira Gunn. This is "Five Minutes".
As technology enables us to physically alter the bodies we were born with,
the ethical and societal guidelines to permit us to do so may prove intractable. Such is the case with the technology of growth hormones.
As a medical technology, growth hormones have been doing their job admirably
for nearly two decades. Children who lack these hormones naturally, or who
suffer from diseases or conditions which interfere with growth, have been
prescribed these replacement hormones, and the results have been extremely
satisfying.
But now there is a new use for these hormones. The Food and Drug
Administration has announced that another group of children, who suffer neither from an absence of growth hormone nor the presence of a growth-compromising medical condition, will now be eligible to receive treatments.
Don't look now, but we're standing on the brink of a slippery slope.
--
These tweens and teens fall into the lowest 1% of kids their age, and are
projected to reach adult heights shy of 4'11", if they are female, and 5'3", if
they are male. By taking growth hormones, these kids will gain somewhere
between 1 and 3 inches or more, by the time they reach adulthood.
So if we take the lowest 1% of the kids, and give them the drugs, where does
this put them on the scale? In the 3rd percentile? Or the 5th? What about
those unfortunates in the 2nd percentile? They aren't short enough to warrant
hormones, but they no doubt would tell you they could use every extra inch they
could muster. And they could well ask why the kids who were shorter than them
now get to be taller.
Defenders argue that the treatments themselves discourage abuse: Besides
being expensive, they entail almost daily injections for years. But we all know
that abusive situations are never avoided just because they subject kids to
horrific conditions. And we also know that pharmaceutical companies successfully create better and cheaper drug delivery systems every day.
--
In the end, could it be that the bar will literally be raised? That humans
will develop a right to be a certain height? Perhaps everyone is entitled to be
in what is now the 3rd percentile. Or might we change the guidelines such that
when kids reach the 2nd percentile for their age group, they have to get off
the hormones until their peers, once again, pass them by?
As a parent and an adult, it's hard to know what to say. Who hasn't said to
their offspring in an exasperated voice something akin to: "Hey, this just a
roll of the genetic dice. Blame your ancestors, and get on with it. Being a
running back for New England is just not a realistic goal." Or do we see this as a sharp new way to level the playing field in a world that is increasingly complex and pressured, a world in which our children have plenty of other challenges to face anyway?
The truth is I have difficulty denying anything that addresses human
suffering - whether physically or emotionally, and for these kids, growth hormones must seem like a dream come true.
On the other hand, any time I see the beginnings of a slippery slope, I want
to head in the other direction.
I'm Moira Gunn. This is Five Minutes.
