Tanner staging and pornography.

Abstract

To the Editor. This letter is in response to a recently published letter by Drs Rosenbloom and Tanner regarding Tanner staging and child pornography. Their letter states that chronologic age cannot be accurately determined via Tanner staging. Therefore, physicians should refrain from testifying in court as to chronologic age based on Tanner staging. If anyone has testified to a specific chronologic age based on Tanner staging, Drs Rosenbloom and Tanner's letter is appropriate criticism. However, one should not conclude that Tanner staging is not useful in child pornography cases. According to revised federal statutes regarding child pornography, an individual in question need only have the appearance of a minor.1 “Minor” is further defined as <18 years of age. In assessing an individual as having the appearance of a child, it is reasonable to use an assessment of the individual's general appearance as well as breast, genital, and pubic hair Tanner stage. An assessment of upper to lower body segment ratio can also be attempted. Dr Tanner published an article regarding height velocities that contained centiles for age of onset of various maturational stages.2 These centiles were superimposed on the chronologic age axis of the height velocity charts. Related data was also published by Barnes.3 From this data one gets a fairly good idea as to the age of a child who has not yet experienced the onset of a given maturational characteristic. Most colleagues are very conservative regarding making statements about individuals who appear to be Tanner stage 3 or above. The difficulty of distinguishing between breast stage 3 and 5 in pornographic photos is recognized. It is also understood that Tanner staging does not apply to populations not evaluated and described by Dr Tanner.1 ,4 ,5There is, however, data regarding children in Singapore.6 …