so do we keep giving the bottom 1%, who by definition will always be of
short stature, until the population height curve is steadily shifted
rightwards so we can all play major league basketball. corse then the
supermarket shelves will have to be continuously higher, plane seats further
apart and basketball nets higher.
>From: Julian Bradley <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: GP-UK <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: 'constitutional' short stature
>Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:39:01 +0100
>
>At 09:51 31/05/2007, you wrote:
>>quite a few paed endocrinologists seem to be recomending growth hormone
>>for
>>idiopathic or constitutional 'shortness' or 'delayed' growth. both of the
>>'diagnoses' seem thus to be a statisical matter than clinical (all
>>pathology
>>ruled out), afterall someone has to be less than and few much less than
>>average! the paed endos make no pretence that it will alter there final
>>genetic stature. is this ethical?
>
>Only if it alters final height safely.
>
>It would be strange if it _could_ not alter final height, as excess growth
>hormone produces gigantism, but it's rather likely that it cannot do it
>safely, or with the kind of doses that might sensibly be used.
>
>As some of you know I have constitutional short stature, though relatively
>mildly. IIRC I'm pretty much eyeball to eyeball with Fay and Mary but that
>may just be my memory impairment!
>
>We enquired, but then backed off from treatment of our children, and have
>no regrets about that. They would speak for themselves.
>
>If the short stature is of the severity that you cannot:
>
>Drive a normal car
>Reach normal shelves in the supermarket
>Live in a normal house without modifications
>Comfortably hold a normal conversation while standing up in a group with
>others
>Participate in normal sports at school
>
>then you have a disability. It's a bit like congenital deafness. Some
>deaf parents WANT their children to be deaf, to share the same culture etc.
>etc. Others want their children to have the widest range of opportunities
>possible.
>
>Fortunately none of the above apply to me, though my father was limited in
>his choice of car, and perhaps in other areas, by his height.
>
>The world is a heightist place. Typically taller people are brighter and
>healthier so the heightism is not entirely unjustified.
>
>Our brains are programmed to respond differently depending on the visual
>angles subtended with those we're conversing with, though some people are
>less fixed than others in these responses.
>
>There probably isn't an answer. However it's only true that there have to
>be people much less than average height if one believes that the normal
>distribution curve MUST be allowed to apply. It's perfectly conceivable
>that we could organize society so that the gap between the tallest and
>shortest in adulthood was no more than x (eg. 20-30) cms.
>
>Anyway the debate is not (in my view FWIW) a simple one ethically (what
>should parents, people or paediatricians do), medically (what is safe and
>sensible) or socially (what should the NHS fund), and it's good to see it
>being aired on list.
>
>Julian
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk/
|