The Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new use for biosynthesized human growth hormone: treating unusually short children who don't have any other known disorder. In clinical studies, the drug, which is called Humatrope and made by Eli Lilly & Company, added several inches to kids' eventual height without producing any significant health risks. Humatrope, in other words, met the regulatory tests for safety and efficacy. But bioethicists greeted the decision with protests.
''We will start to treat the normal as a disease,'' Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania told The Washington Post, adding that ''whenever you take people on the low end of a distribution curve and say they have a disorder, you're starting down a slippery slope.''
It does seem ridiculous to treat otherwise healthy short people as disabled. A man who is 5-foot-3 or a woman who is 4-foot-11 is hardly in the same position as someone who can't walk or see.
Still, being short does, on average, hurt a person's prospects. Short men, in particular, are paid less than tall men. The tall guy gets the girl. The taller presidential candidate almost always wins. And many parents desperately want Humatrope for their short children -- not to treat a ''disease'' but to make their kids' futures more pleasant. These parents care more about the real stigma of being short than about the theoretical stigma of calling shortness a disorder. If adding a few inches means accepting a medical diagnosis of excessively small stature, they'll do it. Why quibble about definitions?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/31/magazine/31ESSAY.html