From the prestigious journal “Nature” come the following medical controversy and the question “Is height a medical problem that needs fixing?” A new treatment for Dwarfism (Achondroplasia) has entered the market and it has generated heated discussions. At the core of this is should parents make the decision for very young children? And even is height or lack thereof a problem with the person or the society that does not accept them? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41...ail&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-51cbe8a54e-48074092 We are not sure of the exact effects of this medication as it will take years to for the patients getting it now to mature enough to make the data reliable And then there is the cost Even if it is the health insurance companies paying that cost will have to be passed on.
Reading the title, ritilan came immediately to mind. Why can't we just let kids grow up without doping them?
and they diagnose any kid with that that seems to have trouble paying attention and that is fidgety..... We used to call that being a child They need to do a study for how many children that have been placed on such drugs go on to develop methamphetamine dependencies later in life. Because that's basically what you're giving them, particularly Adderall.
Do you want me to do a scholar search to determine if such a study has been done? Meanwhile of course we are taking this thread off topic Do you think children with “dwarfism” should be on growth medication?
The cost seems to be the only controversial part (at least from the perspective of a conservative). I suspect some of those on the progressive side know that but have to make up some other stupid excuse to make it sound controversial so they can justify the government not paying for it, since the throngs of progressive voters don't understand money.
This is increasingly becoming a dilemma in society. As medical science progresses, new treatments to disease are being found, but some of those treatments are extremely and unaffordably expensive.
But this is parents agreeing to medication for children just to change one thing - eventual height of the child. There is no evidence that any other benefits will accrue
Dwarfism isn't normal. It's a medical condition and stunted growth is one of its abnormalities. It's perfectly fine to treat this issue and let the kid experience less obstacles in life.
It's more of a real issue than Little Johnny having been confused by the people around him until he thinks that he's little Jenny but they think that they should have an operation for a chop a dick off of me
How much of a difference in the dwarf child's height is anticipated (if treatment is begun at age 5), or is it still too soon to predict? If it is, as your snip says, just "a few centimeters," and that means, 3 or 4 centimeters, then no, that is not a significant enough change, to warrant either the cost, or the unknown risks. I, however, do not see how that small a difference, could be considered to make someone "more acceptable to society," so suspect it has a much greater affect.
I do believe Ritalin helps many, but I also believe it's over prescribed, that said, it should be sold OTC
Good points. The motive is questionable : (making some one more acceptable to society ). It makes the assumption that small people are not acceptable to society and that is a precocial premise. Side effects and unexpected issues factor in too.
I cannot speak for the impact that dwarfism has but I can for being taller than average. Finding clothes that fit is never easy, supermarket shopping is a PITA because everything is on the bottom 2 shelves. Floor cabinets with doors are impossible to see inside without crouching down. Plane seats are too close together, doorways, especially in older buildings, are too low, etc, etc. But literally NO ONE thinks that being tall is a problem! Yes, there are benefits like seeing over a crowd and being able to reach for things off the top shelf. I am sure that there are benefits to being shorter too. Before weighing on the merits or otherwise of this drug treatment I want to see the SIDE EFFECTS which are always tucked away in the fine print when they should be large red print on the packaging. I have to ask why not just use puberty blockers because one of the BENIGN side effects is that you can end up being taller. The energy the body would have been using for the genitals is directed into growth instead. Why not a comparison study? Has anyone done a cost/benefit study for this drug? By that I mean the overhead for the research on top of the overhead for the FDA approval versus the actual number of people for whom this would be a choice and who can afford it? Will those overheads, manufacturing and PROFITS mean that it will be unaffordable to all but a privileged few? What is the morality of having a "cure" for Dwarfism but denying it those who need it most? Will that burden then be passed along to taxpayers? Too many questions that need answers.
I had mostly been wondering about the drug's efficacy, because of the words in the snip, "a few centimeters." If this had been spin, by someone against the drug, and it makes a significant difference in the person's height, then I would be for it. Firstly, because our world is built for people of a general height, and being far below that, surely adds pragmatic challenges to a person's life (as in being able to drive a car). Secondly, though, I don't think that the motive of making someone "more acceptable," or more normal looking, is necessarily invalid. Compare this to, for example, surgery used to correct a cleft palette. Both children and adults can be judgemental of appearance, and cruel in their treatment of those seen as "freaks." So, if this defect of dwarfism-- and I think, if they had the choice, most dwarves would rather be more normal, in height-- can be corrected, then I don't know that this should be a reason for much hand-wringing, over the thought that the child doesn't have a say-- as if he or she might actually prefer being a dwarf, or that this drug is only having a "cosmetic" effect. If we are being realistic, being a dwarf, severely cuts down on one's options, for finding a mate.
May "little people are born with or develop skeletal l issues .requiring multiple surgeries . Are we to gather that this medication would help in that area ?? Their height is the visible characteristic, but they do have more issues than just that. IF this medication (by adding height) was to also help alleviate some of those other issues and make their lives easier , that would be an important motivation for advancing it. Society is cruel to anyone that is "different" . But those that are so, find ways to cope.
I was a very shy little child in school and often spent my free time in the woods playing alone. I was very late to develop socially and diagnosed with ADD and drugged up of course.... But even then I knew it was bad and I used to hide it under my tongue and spit it out in the water fountain. I was also a very awkward teenager with few friends. To this day I still don't have a ton of friends but the friends I do have are genuine ones. I have learned to be more of an extrovert, though I still enjoy solitude and have my moods. In fact I'm sitting by myself in the middle of the woods right now. I imagine combining a childhood like that was something like dwarfism would be even tougher. I don't advocate for using kids as guinea pigs for this drug but if it is proven effective then why the hell not? That's actually something that could be physically helped as opposed to giving kids with ADD what amounts to meth.
Your childhood sounds like mine but without the ADD diagnosis. Your description of your friends sounds like mine too. Have you ever tested yourself for ASD? Don't do it with any expectation, just do it out of curiosity. I ended up doing 6 online ASD tests altogether and every single one showed more or less the same result. Then I had the official diagnosis which confirmed what the online tests were saying. I joined an online ASD community and that opened my eyes, almost literally, because suddenly the world around me started to make sense. Being ASD means that you take things literally which leads to communication issues. It won't hurt to try it when there is no one around at 3am and you are bored.
Were you attempting to try to draw an analogy to the transgender issue? Being dwarfed can have all sorts of drawbacks functioning in life, and can even lead to some minor medical issues. If you seriously wanted to debate this issue just from the ethical side, having nothing to do with the cost of the medical treatment, then I am having trouble seeing any real issue. (We as assuming of course that the child wants the treatment. If the child objected to the treatment and they wanted to force it on him anyway, I suppose then we might have an issue to debate)
