Dr. Mercola July 20 2002 1,061 views
Treating healthy children who are relatively short with growth hormone to give them a few extra inches in height has no effect on their self-esteem or quality of life.
Researchers found that children who were given growth hormone experienced no change in their sense of self-esteem or their quality of life for up to 2 years after they received the treatment.
Some studies have suggested that children who are short for their ages have certain psychological and social problems as a result, perhaps from being treated as younger than they are, or from the limitations their height places on sports and other play activities.
In response, researchers have developed a "treatment" for otherwise healthy kids with short stature, during which they receive growth hormone, which can add between 1 and 4 inches in height.
The investigators found that the short children who participated in this study did not appear to have lower self-esteem than their peers, but did seem to have slightly less ability in social functioning.
Despite the increase in growth, kids treated with growth hormone did not report any change in their self-esteem over the treatment period, and neither did their parents. The pediatricians, however, did note that they suspected some growth hormone-treated children did improve their attitudes over the course of therapy.
Growth hormone treatment for shorter than average children -- which can cost up to $30,000 a year -- may not help youngsters feel good about themselves, and, in some cases, may make them feel worse.
In children who have no underlying disorder that is causing their short stature, growth hormone can have widely differing effects on their height. With the variability and unpredictability of results for any particular child, growth hormone therapy becomes an intervention that may be more detrimental than the original complaint of short stature.
Journal of Pediatrics May 2002;140:493-495, 507-515
This study suggests there are no positive effects on self-esteem with growth hormome treatment. Another strike against such treatments, largely ignored in the traditional paradigm, is the psychological trauma children are subject to with blood draws and needle sticks. I regularly see the consequences of this in my office. Several years ago I stopped all routine blood draws on children below the age of ten or so unless they were highly cooperative. Occasionally, because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, I will administer IV secretin for autistic children.
In the growth hormone study, I suspect both the trauma from the injections and the attitude of the parent's regarding their child's short stature were significant factors in the researchers observations.
What then would Dr Mercola recommend for those children who are extremely short for their age and on whom the medical community is leaning towards taking growth hormone? I have a 6-yr-old who is the size of an average 4-yr-old, while both parents and one sibling are of "normal" height. I have no desire to give daily injections but is there any substitute because the psychological effects of being so small are also real.
I have an eight year old that was diagnosed with brain cancer at age five. He was given three months to live...three years ago. His radiation treatments did a lot of damage to his pituitary gland. His bones are the size of a three and a half year old. There is the threat of stimulating cell growth in the tumor when growth hormones are given. His endocrinologist blew this off and his pharmacist said she wouldn't give the hormones if it were her child. What am I to do? I don't mind him remaining the size he currently is, however, being 43" tall is not exactly ideal. He's been on the hormones for one month and is an emotional wreck. I'm guessing that it's affecting the tumor as well. Any advice or simular situations out there?