Case study
A General Practitioner (GP) has three male patients. Peter and Karl
are aged eight years. Both are short for their age. Peter’s short
stature is due to a congenital deficiency in human growth
hormone. His parents are both over 170 cm tall. Karl, however, is
simply short because his parents are both under 165 cm in height.
He has normal growth hormone levels.
A pharmaceutical company has used genetic technology to produce
human growth hormone. It is an expensive treatment but is being
used by many doctors to treat growth problems. Both Peter and
Karl’s parents want the GP to prescribe it for their sons.
A child’s genetic height potential is determined by the genes
inherited from both parents as well as by environmental factors
such as diet. Therefore the treatment should enable Peter to reach
a height similar to that of his parents and attain a normal stature.
Karl’s potential height is likely to be similar to his parents, that is,
on the short side of normal. He will grow taller with the treatment,
but will always be on the short end of the normal range for height.
The GP’s third patient is Tom, an athlete aged 22. Tom aspires to
the 2004 Olympic Games rowing team. Tom has also asked to be
treated with human growth hormone. He believes that with the
extra muscle bulk and strength that the treatment will give him, he
may be able to achieve his Olympic ambitions.
Dilemmas
Which of these three people should be entitled to use the
genetically engineered product?
Will the use of genetically engineered products such as
human growth hormone alter social perceptions and
acceptability of characteristics like height?
Could people of 150 cm be seen as having a disability?