That's the question asked in a USA Today
article that tells the story of a family who fought their insurance company to have their son's $20,000/year growth hormone treatments covered. The boy was diagnosed with ISS -- idiopathic short stature -- which doctors say limits victims to an adult height of 4-foot-11 for girls or 5-foot-3 for boys. Treatment with growth hormones helps, Eli Lilly has permission from the FDA to market its human growth hormone for that purpose (with the average total cost of treatment running $100,000 for a couple-of-inch increase), and the drug manufacturer figures there's about 400,000 kids in need of it. The need
part is what's debatable, as there is substantial disagreement among doctors, parents and insurers as to whether this degree of shortness is a significant enough handicap to throw $40 billion at. What do you think? Note that we're not talking about dwarfism
here, which generally involves an adult height below 4-foot-10 and may involve skeletal abnormalities; we're just talking garden-variety short. Should being diminutive be considered a disability? As a certified short person myself, I'd have to say no, but you can pick your own choice from the poll at right, and go on at greater length (height?) in the comments below.