Abstract
The advancement of "human growth hormone (hGH)-for-height" - increasing height attainment in children short for reasons other than GH deficiency - arose from intuitive, deep-seated assumptions about the disability of short stature, its improvement with hGH-mediated height gain, and the safety of escalating dosages of hGH in healthy children. Evidence challenging these assumptions now strengthens criticism of hGH-for-height as cosmetic endocrinology. To counter this characterization, collective acceptance of guidelines is needed that advise nontreatment of the vast majority of short children, support strategies that minimize treatment duration and dosage, and restrain enhancement of normal adult stature. Through a clinical case analysis, ethical issues underlying these recommendations are explored. These include duties to provide informed assent and re-assent, protect children from unnecessary treatment, consider fairness to nontreated children, and allocate healthcare resources responsibly. Informed assent for hGH-for-height should ensure awareness of modest, variable height gain expectations, limited evidence for psychosocial benefit, ongoing studies for potential posttreatment adverse effects, and options for less expensive/invasive approaches, including nontreatment and counseling. Approaching growth pro-motion in this way fosters therapeutic restraint, resists the al lure of enhancement therapy, and minimizes contributions to society's perception that to be taller is to be better.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment