Growth Hormone

Natalie in her blog Interface flagged up the issue of using growth hormone in children of short stature. Being short can be a bit of an ordeal for a child - I'm speaking from personal experience, although you wouldn't tell these days. So, well-meaning parents are prepared to shell out $50,000 per inch of growth to give their child a better life.

Before giving my opinion on this I should add that growth hormone has a place in medicine for treating children who are genuinely behind with their physical development. From birth to adulthood, there are ranges of height and weight, of physical proportions etc, which are by the law of averages deemed to be normal. If you're at the lower end of the scale, you may still catch up as you pass through the growth spurt in your early or mid-teens. Growth retardation is a recognised medical condition, which can be eminently treated with growth hormone. It does have its side-effects, but the benefit (as with all medicines) will outweigh the disadvantages.

If parents are concerned that their child appears to be lagging behind in growth, they should consult their doctor. He can then examine the youngster and ascertain whether there is a problem. It can be an ordeal as a child to be short, or to stand out from the crowd in any other way.

Children who are at the lower end of the scale in terms of growth, but otherwise physically and hormonally normal, should not be treated with growth hormone. As I said before, they should catch up through puberty. It is unethical in my personal opinion to give a child a better life by artificially boosting its growth, when there is no medical imperative for it.

Administering growth hormone to a child that does not need it is just as bad as giving any medicine needlessly. Growth hormone is very expensive, and carries significant side effects.