Growth hormone for healthy but short kids

"Sue" wrote in message
...
I don't think it is right for otherwise healthy children. But, it is nice
to
see that for the children that need it, at least the FDA has approved it.

It was *already* approved for use in children who are not growing properly
due to health issues, though. So it would have been available for your
daughter regardless of this ruling from the FDA.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [17mo] mom)
"Nobody died when Clinton lied." -- freeway sign

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"They walk with an unsteady, shambling gate." -- Article in the San Diego
Union Tribune

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

"Circe" wrote in message
news:RbO_a.10729$2g.1140@fed1read05...
The following has been in the news for the past few days.
================================
Growth Hormone Gets New Use
For kids of 'short stature'

TUESDAY, July 29 (HealthDayNews) -- The Food and Drug Administration has
OK'd the use of growth hormone injections on children who are healthy but
abnormally short and who hope to gain 1 to 3 inches of height.
The drug, called Humatrope, is only for the shortest 1.2 percent of
children, which manufacturer Eli Lilly says includes 400,000 such children
between the ages 7 to 15. The drug maker, however, predicts that only
about
10 percent ultimately would receive growth hormone because of tight
eligibility restrictions, and because many families won't want to endure
up
to six shots a week for years.
(snip)
So, do you agree with the FDA's decision or not?

no.

And what does this say
about our culture's bias that bigger is better?

exactly. if a child is short but has no other health issues, why is the
shortness medicalised & "fixed"? if the only gain is 1-3 inches it boggles
the mind how anyone could think this would be worth it, anyway.
(particularly at that cost, & 6(!) shots a week).

doubtless my life would be easier if i was 1-3 inches taller (& i'm not
abnormally short by any measure!!!!) but the line should be drawn somewhere,
which imo should be right underneath what is perfectly normal & healthy.
even if it *is* a bit shorter than average.

i think this speaks volumes about the increasing unacceptability of any
difference - that's the real issue.
kylie
--
www.rdj.com.au

"Circe" wrote in message news:RbO_a.10729$2g.1140@fed1read05...
The following has been in the news for the past few days.
================================
Growth Hormone Gets New Use
For kids of 'short stature'

TUESDAY, July 29 (HealthDayNews) -- The Food and Drug Administration has
OK'd the use of growth hormone injections on children who are healthy but
abnormally short and who hope to gain 1 to 3 inches of height.
========================

So, do you agree with the FDA's decision or not? And what does this say
about our culture's bias that bigger is better?

FDA should determine that drugs are safe and effective, NOT if drugs
are socially good. If it works and is safe, the FDA should approve
it: it's not their job to grill people about social pressures, nor
should it be.

As for what it says about our cultu it says what we already know.
People are vain. People want to be taller. Cosmetic surgeries and
drug applications are common. But you already knew that.

Joshua Levy

Circe wrote:

========================

So, do you agree with the FDA's decision or not? And what does this say
about our culture's bias that bigger is better?

After seeing what my nephew, who has a true growth hormone disorder, goes
through with those shots, I can't imagine
anyone putting their child through that when there is no medical indication.

I am the mother of a healthy short statured child (and I'm quite tall) and I
have many nieces and nephews of short stature.
It isn't easy sometimes, it can be heartbreaking, but I'm not about to mess
with her body chemistry and future health for the
sake of 1-3 inches.

Karen

Circe wrote:

So, do you agree with the FDA's decision
or not? And what does this say about
our culture's bias that bigger is better?


My 5 yo. Nephew would love to grow a bit more.. if those shots were in
pill form instead I bet he'd go for it in a heartbeat.

Harry is shorter than his 3 yo. sister. He looks like a toddler but is
a thin kind (not the chubby toddler type). As a Kindergartener he looks
more like a pre-preschooler.

He walks on his tip toes all the time _trying_ to be taller. Not
because anyone has said "you're short" but because he wants to be big.
He's no longer as flexible as he used to be.. can't touch his toes
without bending his knees. Kind of reminds me of women who wear
high-heels all the time.

His parents aren't concerned=B9 but everyone else in our family is.. we
constantly tell him to "walk right" meaning off his toes. We're going
to buy him some _heavy_ boots so that it's not so easy to toe walk for
him.. otherwise we foresee a lifetime of back and leg problems for him.

So.. sometimes growth hormones are necessary.. but 6 shots a week are
not something I would put my kids through.. not for a few inches.

~misty
=B9not the best parents in the world and have turned temp. guardianship
of their kids to another sister.

In article 27676-3F3E53A7-34@storefull-
2294.public.lawson.webtv.net, says...

My 5 yo. Nephew would love to grow a bit more.. if those shots were in
pill form instead I bet he'd go for it in a heartbeat.

Harry is shorter than his 3 yo. sister. He looks like a toddler but is
a thin kind (not the chubby toddler type). As a Kindergartener he looks
more like a pre-preschooler.

Our son is like that, too. He's three, and is about the size of your
average 18-24 month old. It's not uncommon to meet two year olds
that are inches taller than he is. He's way below the 5% line for
weight and height -- he's probably in the bottom 1-2%. Growth
hormones will be something my husband probably discuss in the future,
consider that at the rate he's growing, he might not hit 80 pounds
until he's 15 or so, and he legally has to ride in a booster and in
the back seat of a car until then. Kinda difficult to learn to drive
that way.

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)

I guess the issue becomes that some kids DO catch up and end up in the
normal range. My brother was adopted and he hit puberty late - and he
was really short relative to his peers into his mid teens. My father
didn't know what to tell him, since we had no idea of the heights of
his biological parents (i.e. we couldn't reassure him based on history
that he would catch up). However, catch up he did, in a burst at 16/17
and is quite an average height - he is 5' 9", so not a basketball
player, but in the just fine okay range.

We also have a neighbour who is a successful lawyer with three kids
whose oldest kid is really teeny. He's so small, you'd think there was
something wrong with him - his sister who is a year younger than him
is much taller. However, the dad is 5' 7" and he says he was a peanut
as a 7 year old as well.

You wouldn't want to be giving a kid growth hormones at this point
because you don't know there is a problem at all.

Mary G.

In article ,
says...

You wouldn't want to be giving a kid growth hormones at this point
because you don't know there is a problem at all.

Duh, really? "Something we'll probably discuss in the future"
doesn't mean, "We're doing it next week" or even that we're doing it
at all.

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:50:04 -0700, "Circe" quoted:

(a story about the US FDA authorizing limited growth hormone treatment
for small classes of eligible children)

So, do you agree with the FDA's decision or not?

We're talking treating 40,000 kids nationwide? That's probably pretty
reasonable.

And what does this say about our culture's bias that bigger is
better?

I see this as 'bigger makes tasks of daily living somewhat more
achievable'. Taking four and a half feet up three inches could make
driving a car, for example, a whole lot closer to do-able.

Obviously, the concern is parents of potential college basketball
players looking to up the height even more, but there's a limit to how
tightly a med can be controlled, and how much you can protect people
from their own unscrupulousness.