The lack of such consensus, has much to do with the reality that there is truly no one regularly acknowledged interpretation of the goals of medicine, in essence, making the distinction of what "going beyond health to enhancement" means. There are those like Norman Daniels, a prominent Harvard ethicist, who views "disease and disability as departures from species-typical normal functioning". As Daniel's puts it, "According to the normal function model, the central purpose of health care is to maintain, restore, or compensate for the restricted opportunity and loss of function caused by disease and disability". Proper healthcare restores individuals to the breadth of opportunities they would have had without the pathological condition. Ultimately, the intention lies within the spectrum, of providing individuals with normal or as close to normal function so that they can have an "equal opportunity" to pursue their goals. Without a doubt, the terms "normal" and "equal" are ambiguous, however, at the core of the "normal function" model is the notion that health care must help people become "normal"-which is not to say equal-competitors. Altogether, the "normal function model" asserts; that people are by nature unequally gifted, with regard to traits and talents; while accepting that by nature individuals are not equal competitors. The normal function model considers that those unequal competitors-children like Johnny, are entitled to an equal opportunity to seek their aim, within the limits set by those natural endowments. In the case of Johnny, a child who is considerably below the bottom one percentile for height-the range deemed eligible for growth hormone by the FDA, and under the view that medicine's primary goal is to restore people to normal function in order for them to pursue their life goals, Johnny should be administered human growth hormone.