"Anything you can do, I can do bigger?": the ethics and equity of growth hormone for small normal children

How sociophenomenology of the body problematises the 'problem-oriented approach' to growth hormone treatment

This article examines how people who are shorter than average make sense of their lived experience of embodiment. It offers a sociophenomenological analysis of 10 semistructured interviews conducted in the Netherlands, focusing on if, how, and why height matters to them. It draws theoretically on phenomenological discussions of lived and objective space, intercorporeality and norms about bodies. The analysis shows that height as a lived phenomenon (1) is active engagement in space, (2) coshapes habituated ways of behaving and (3) is shaped by gendered norms and beliefs about height. Based on this analysis, the article challenges what we label as the 'problem-oriented approach' to discussions about growth hormone treatment for children with idiopathic short stature. In this approach, possible psychosocial disadvantages or problems of short stature and quantifiable height become central to the ethical evaluation of growth hormone treatment at the expense of first-hand lived experiences of short stature and height as a lived phenomenon. Based on our sociophenomenological analysis, this paper argues that the rationale for giving growth hormone treatment should combine medical and psychological assessments with investigations of lived experiences of the child. Such an approach would allow considerations not only of possible risks or disadvantages of short stature but also of the actual ways in which the child makes sense of her or his height.

Medicalising short children with growth hormone? Ethical considerations of the underlying sociocultural aspects

In 2003, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of growth hormone treatment for idiopathic short stature children, i.e. children shorter than average due to an unknown medical cause. Given the absence of any pathological conditions, this decision has been contested as a case of medicalisation. The aim of this paper is to broaden the debate over the reasons for and against the treatment, to include considerations of the sociocultural phenomenon of the medicalisation of short stature, by means of a critical understanding of the concept of medicalisation. After defining my understanding of medicalisation and describing both the treatment and the condition of idiopathic short stature, I will problematise two fundamental issues: the medical/non-medical distinction and the debate about the goals of medicine. I will analyse them, combining perspectives of bioethics, medical sociology, philosophy of medicine and medical literature, and I will suggest that there are different levels of normativity of medicalisation. Ultimately, this study shows that: (1) the definition of idiopathic short stature, focusing only on actual height measurement, does not provide enough information to assess the need for treatment or not; (2) the analysis of the goals of medicine should be broadened to include justifications for the treatment; (3) the use of growth hormone for idiopathic short stature involves strong interests from different stakeholders. While the treatment might be beneficial for some children, it is necessary to be vigilant about possible misconduct at different levels of medicalisation.

Responding to requests from adult patients for neuroenhancements: guidance of the Ethics, Law and Humanities Committee

In the last decade, persons who have no diagnosed medical or mental health condition are increasingly seeking and utilizing, for the ostensible purpose of enhancing their memory or cognitive skills, prescription drugs that were originally developed to improve executive function or memory in persons diagnosed with disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or Alzheimer disease. Evidence suggests that this practice, now known as neuroenhancement, is gathering momentum. As a result, neurologists may be encountering patients without a diagnosed illness asking for medications with the goal of improving their memory, cognitive focus, or attention span. Strong arguments have been made for and against this practice, often reflecting strongly held convictions concerning the appropriate practice of medicine. The purpose of this report is to provide neurologists with an overview of the ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of pharmaceuticals prescribed to enhance or augment normal cognitive or affective functioning, as well as practical guidance for responding to an adult patient's request for neuroenhancement.

[Growth hormone and idiopathic short stature]

Idiopathic short stature is defined by height below 3rd percentile, in a child with normal birth height and weight, lack of dysmorphy, endocrine deficiency or systemic disease. Food and Drugs administration approved GH treatment in this indication in the United States, because it induces height gain, and sometimes may increase quality of life. There is no consensus in terms of duration, monitoring parameters, benefits and risks of long term GH treatment in these patients. Cost effectiveness of such a treatment is under debate, and ethical considerations also have to be taken into account. Recombinant IGF1 should not be proposed in this indication at the moment, due to the lack of sufficient data on potential GH insensitivity in a subgroup of these patients.

Ashley X

The recent case of Ashley X has sparked much recent public debate and controversy, and raises critical questions for physiatrists and rehabilitation professionals. The case came to light when Gunther and Diekema published an article in the October 2006 issue of Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine describing a novel growth attenuation treatment for Ashley X, a 6-yr-old girl with developmental disabilities. Her parents also published a blog about Ashley, with detailed explanations for their rationale in choosing this treatment on behalf of Ashley which involved beliefs about her future and quality of life. Ashley's parents refer to the series of interventions as the Ashley Treatment in their blog, and this phrase has also been adopted by the popular press and others who have commented on the case. In this article we present an analysis of the Ashley X treatment and use a disability ethics approach to examine the perspectives of various stakeholders involved, including Ashley and other girls with extensive disabilities, parents, physicians, and bioethics committees. We conclude with critical questions for physiatrists and other disability specialists who are in a unique position to examine medical controversies involving people with disabilities.