-A8
This is a fanciful question, as it's impossible to determine one's lifetime mental capacity in utero, and also the simple fact of not having arms and legs would not reduce weight to the extent that a drug keeping someone very small would (actually, come to think of it, there could be a weight situation even with the estrogen).
But, no, I wouldn't approve thalidomide just like I wouldn't approve amputation. The existence of limbs serves to give any person who has use of those limbs more ability to move, to shift oneself if uncomfortable, to respond to painful stimuli by rolling away without the substantial difficulty that an even mentally normal person has in movement without any limbs. I didn't see if this child can creep, crawl, or roll around like an infant. All of those things can benefit an individual, so no, I wouldn't choose thalidomide because I think it has potential for harm in a way stunting growth does not.
Tell me, A8, what do you see is the actual harm in stunting this child's growth?