Bolt and Mul argue persuasively against the "disease" approach and the "cli
ent" approach in addressing the question of whether growth hormone for shor
t children properly belongs in the medical realm. Their own preferred appro
ach, the "suffering" approach, is superior to the others but has practical
problems that would arise in its application. An additional ethical issue,
not addressed by Bolt and Mul, relates to justice in providing access for c
hildren from families of limited financial means to growth hormone treatmen
t.