Slashdot Mirror
Umbilical Cord Blood Banking?
Maestro writes "There must be many parents (and soon-to-be parents) here at Slashdot. What are your thoughts on umbilical cord blood banking? This seems like a major question for our newborn; the question is almost as stressful for us as naming the baby. Given Obama's stance on stem cells, the topic is timely. My understanding is that while the current uses for cord blood are limited, the sky's the limit for the future of stem cell therapies. But with the initial cost over $1000, and ongoing yearly fees, is it worth it?"
In ten years, this thing will be useless, because we will be able to reprogram somatic cells to do all the work.
But with the initial cost over $1000, and ongoing yearly fees, is it worth it?"
A friend of mine lost a limb in a accident with a lathe. When he tried to get a prosthesis, Bluecross/Blueshield denied the request because he wasn't covered. He now beats himself for having wanted to save $30/year on insurance.
Same for stem cells from umbilical cords: sure it looks costly, but in the event you get leukemia or some other nasty ailment in you lifetime (unlikely probability but definitely not zero), you'd find the investment very cheap indeed.
I myself would pay without hesitation.
There must be many parents (and soon-to-be parents) here at Slashdot
This is Slashdot you incompetent clod. Noone here has a girlfriend let alone children!! Christ, half of us still live with our parents...
You mean on Second Life??
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I know I wish I happened to have a bank of stem cells for myself. This is an easy choice, if you're going to spend 9 months baking a kid what is another $1000 if you could save its life one day? $1000 is the same amount as the 3D Apple iFusionPod they'll have to have in 10 years anyway.
I'm a father of 4. Our newbie was born at 23 weeks/0 days gestation in December. He isn't due until April 12th. (Doing great, BTW) Birth weight was 1lb 6oz. (now at 2lbs 5oz.)
My son just got transferred out of the NICU at Children's Hospital in MPLS yesterday. He has needed numerous blood products, several surgeries and we still have a long road ahead. The odds are that he will have some developmental problems in the future. We banked his cells. Perhaps they are not going to do us any good today - tomorrow may just help our little man.
You just never know what is going to happen. For me, it is quite worth the investment.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
With the other arm, presumably?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I know the sky is the limit with our bodies purest and best programmed cells, but for the average young family. ~ $1300 upfront and ~$130 a year is a lot of money. Are there any programs that will let you donate some of your cells for research in exchange for storage of the remaining cells? I wish there were more publicity on this issue.
That is the question.
In Italian hospitals we already have the full placenta collected and stored especially for stem cells.
I'm only not sure whether you can claim your own back, though.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Cord blood banking seems to be a scam. I considered it briefly for our kid, but reading quite a bit about it, decided not to do it. Here's why: 1. Stem cells similar to those present in cord blood are easily obtained from our own (adult) blood if/when the need arises. 2. Very low chance that they will be useful to siblings/parents/other relatives. 3. No guarantee of how well these cells survive in the cryogenic environment. No guarantee from the banks of backup plans in case of failure. 4. All fancy stuff (about regenerating organs) from the cells is science fiction so far. 5. Medical science could find alternative ways to cure your conditions by then. 6. The bank guys are great at emotional blackmail --- like giving the greatest gift to your newborn, and being a bad parent otherwise. I had one guy who told me that I might even make money selling it in future. Shame on him.
The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar
Do some cost/risk/benefit analysis. There is a relatively low probability that your kid will actually need stem cells from the umbilical cord. For this to be useful, (1) your kid would need to have a relatively narrow range of sicknesses, (2) medical science would need to have a mechanism that can utilize umbilical cord stem cells without being able to utilize other cell types; and (3) you would need to be able to afford the gene therapy. If you RTFA, you will see that various organizations recommend not doing this unless there is a history of certain diseases in the family. So is such a relatively low probability worth the expense? Obviously, you know your family history and financial situation better than someone else does.
Meanwhile, college is a very likely expense. So consider setting aside the money into a college fund.
It is also possible to donate the placenta. I hear that some of the donation sites try to do a best-of-both-worlds deal, where the placenta is put on hold for some time (for free) in case the child needs it. If the child doesn't need it by a certain time, the facility can then use it.
I have a ten month old son and we chose to bank his cord blood. We live in Canada and we used LifeBank. It essentially cost $1,000 to sign up, get the kit, collect the blood, and have it tested. They test for sample quality and such. We then paid $1,800 up front for 18 years of storage. My point is, the cost is $2,800 today and we don't have to think about it again. Our decision was mostly based on it being the cheapest insurance you can buy. Cord blood isn't only potentially useful to your child, but also to any blood relative. It's already being used to treat several forms of Leukemia, various forms of anemia, and a bunch of stuff I don't know what it is, but also helpful helping a patient recover from chemotherapy. Then there's all the current clinical trials on common diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Heart Disease. My wife's family has a history of Cancer, and my family has a history of Heart Disease. I think one of two things will happen: 1) 18 years will go by and we'll never think about it again. Then we'll have to decide if we want to spend $100/year for this 'insurance'. At least we'll better be able to afford it. 2) Something tragic will happen and we'll be able to use our 'insurance' to minimize the damage. If we chose not to bank the blood and something happened that could be mitigated by having it, I can't imagine the grief of saying "why didn't we?" -- Especially when the amazing new computer I bought for the same $2,800 was outdated years earlier. Christopher
We just went through this. We discussed it with our doctor (who happened to also be the head of obstetricss) his take on it was that it wasn't worth the investment, given the small set of conditions it would help with.
We instead donated our daughter's cord blood to the local Children's hospital, where they will extract the stem cells for research purposes and if her blood matches anyone who currently needs it, it will go to them. Seemed more civic minded then putting the blood into a bank and placing a "reserved" sign on it.
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
Donate it. There's not enough blood in a single cord to be useful for transfusion purposes. You don't need your own cord blood for the expected applications of cord blood (i.e. stem cell therapies).
It's more useful now to researchers, or even more practical- in combination with other cord donations to treat a patient with leukaemia (or a number of other diseases) now.
Donate it. Consider it a "pay it forward" situtation.
Sadly we wanted to donate both our kids cords, but the private hospital we used was not part of the national cord blood bank program.
In most cases where that blood could help, the very own sample is unusable, due to having the same defect that caused the illness. Also the amount of stem cells from one sample is not enough very soon.
Voluntary sending it to public bank makes more sense from the technical viewpoint, but getting it financed is another matter - you'd hardly shell out $1000 for that.
Private banks are basically a scam, you pay for something that will hardly help anyone.
/. invited me to drink from the firehose>.> I hope there isn't some type of vampiric code running here.
Basiclly if you put it in for free, they may use it they may not. If the kid needed it later they'd try to find it. We opted for that but there wasn't enough in the cord anyway so it was all moot.
'The primary reason that parents consider banking their newborn's cord blood is because they have a child or close relative with or a family medical history of diseases that can be treated with bone marrow transplants. Some diseases that more commonly involve bone marrow transplants include certain kinds of leukemia or lymphoma, aplastic anemia, severe sickle cell anemia, and severe combined immune deficiency.
The odds that the average baby without risk factors will ever use his or her own banked cord blood is considered low; however, no accurate estimates exist at this time.'
Having said that, if this had been an option when my kids were born, I've have probably done it. Compared with what kids cost you over time, 1000 is peanuts.
I have 3 kids and we never did. it sounded like a scam that they try to pull on new parents...
Like any sane bettor you should think about what the odds are.
The other question is about what might you better do with the money.
Every day you take the chance of going out into the world and playing in the traffic. My guess is that you might be better off using the money to enhance your accident and liability coverage.
What are the chances of losing your job? Might you need that $1000 to live on for a couple of months?
My guess is that the chances you will use the blood are much less than those of being in a horrible traffic accident or those of losing your job.
It's free to donate it and you know it actually gets put to good use rather than sitting in a blood bank. Plus I think you get some real life karma for it. Well either way, don't let the doctor discard it (like usually happens).
FEAR is a marketing tool for the Baby Industrial Complex, and it starts with this umbilical cord bullshit. They'll want you to buy all manner of unnecessary items and services, because you'll think that if you don't your child is surely doomed! Read this amusing article about it
"Write down your worries and then depress your companions by reading them out loud." - Eeyore's Little Book of Gloom
Until there aren't any proven therapies developed you would be wasting your money.
Right now we have a vague promise at best that therapies for certain diseases could be found, but nothing else.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So we would have national blood cells banks for treating blood marrow cancers. It it easy and cheap way to collect the cells ...
You can the use it in two ways:
1. for avto-transplantation in case the person who donated the cells gets leukaemia
2. for blood donor transplantation, when someone who is close match to the donor gets leukemia.
In my opinion, this wouldn't cost much ... and we are already doing this in some European countries, although we are collecting cells from volunteering adults in a more expensive way.
A co-worker of my pointed me to a group that would collect the umbilical cord and blood for research use. It didn't cost a dime: they mailed us a little collection kit which we gave to the delivery room doctor, and he packaged everything up and mailed it. Now, granted, it's not earmarked for our kid's personal use. But it _is_ going towards stem cell research, which in my mind is a much more useful way to use cord blood at this juncture. Unless you have some family medical history for a condition that has a proven stem cell treatment, research is a good use for the cord blood, rather than spending a non-trivial amount of money renting freezer space. Unfortunately I don't have a website for the group we used: my co-worker gave me a pamphlet with a phone number on it. But I'm sure a quick search should turn up groups that will do free cord blood collecting for research, if you choose to go that route.
The Times reports that "They are freezing the cells taken from the umbilical cord blood of their babies as a possible future cure for cartilage and ligament problems. Stem cells can be used to regenerate damaged organs and tissue because they are the earliest form of cells." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article620835.ece
...On developmental biology and stem cells. My teacher is currently doing research on stem cells, and has been doing this for several years, so she is quite into the whole subject.
Anyway, we discussed this particular matter into detail, and her verdict (And ours after listening to her) was very clear: It is a waste of money.
There are much more pontential (And it is cheaper) to use somatic stem cells, or just by doing nuclear transfer from a somatic cell to a donor egg, you can get pluripotent stemcells this way.
If it's a boy, please don't circumcise him. http://www.nocirc.org/
I've never heard of the exact thing you're talking about - I suspect it's a USA only thing.
But we were given the chance to donate the umbilical cord blood to help with research (Stem Cell in particular). And why wouldn't we do it? Helps others, and something we obviously won't be using ourselves. That was 11 months ago.
I suspect what you're talking about is some sort of scheme where a third party stores the blood "just in case" (the same sort of "just in case" as freezing your body when you die) - the hope is that possibly in the future it will help your child - though currently there's no known proven benefits.
If that's the case - may I suggest donating the blood to the appropriate people. That way - we all benefit. And you're not ripped off.
Mike
Might you need that $1000 to live on for a couple of months?
$1000? Couple of months? Are you already assuming he's living in a box under a bridge somewhere?
In 2007 I lost my daughter of 22 to leukemia. In my opinion saving the umbilical cord is a no brainer. Yes, you must save it or later possibily spend the rest of your life with the burden of knowing that you could have.
Grey Coder
Smile the Joke is on you
Obama's feelings on *embryonic* stem cells are not relevant.
Cord blood provides *adult* stem cells, for which there are actual uses currently known.
This is a very significant distinction.
In Spain, we have the choice of keeping the blood in a bank, destroying it or donating it for medical use and research. The first costs 200 EUR for the extraction, then 60 EUR each month. The other two are for free.
My first kid was born recently and we decided to donate. And I believe it's what most parents do here.
It's a touchy subject and it depends on your beliefs and how you go about doing it.
Does donating cord blood to a public entity that can then use it to help anyone really help? Yes, quite obviously, which is why blood banks of any sort exist. If they take it from you and store it for free... it means THEY NEED IT (think regular blood donations, where they sometimes even PAY YOU for your blood). Be even kinder and donate it to somewhere that pays you, but refuse the payment.
If they charge you to store it, it means they don't believe they'll see a way to use most of it so they have to pay for storage in the hopes that "someday" they'll find a use (they are that confident in this, that YOU are the one paying for that) or they're profiteering. This is like those people who cryogenically preserve themselves in the hope that "one day", they'll be a cure for their illness (i.e. death). The cryo companies love it because you don't get any complaining customers and you can take their money and blatantly make a profit on it for decades after their death by having a cold warehouse and doing bugger all.
Does earmarking your own cord blood for use only by yourself and/or relatives and paying thousands for the privilege really help? Probably not. Your own cord blood is in such small amounts that it's of little use on its own, so you'll be either be "mixing" it with others cord blood ("all take and no give" ring a bell?), or a way will be found to multiply your own (so why did you have to be protective of it when it could have been used in other people without affecting your own prospects of storing it?). To quote the article: "donor cord-blood stem cells do not need to be a perfect match to create a successful bone marrow transplant." So if you "earmark" your cord blood for storage for yourself, then you are actually denying it to someone else. Can you live with that knowledge? That someone out there is denied life because you have denied giving blood to them? What if you decide NOT to bank the blood but yet your newborn then needs it... are you going to be righteous and not take anybody else's cord blood either?
Basically, as with all things, if it's in the long-term interests of your health, you'll be able to add to a national blood bank for free (or be paid for it). If you're paying for the "privilege", then you're into a large grey area. Like insurance, the chances are that most of the people who pay will NEVER use it and it'll end up being disposed of, unused. If you're one of the lucky ones that does use it and decided to bank it, it's fantastic, but you are gambling on a long shot with tiny probabilities (unless you know something we don't). It's not nice to talk of "gambling with lives" but we do it everyday. Is it safer to let your child learn to cross the road on their own, or to mollycoddle them and lead them across each day yourself? Obviously, a child is more at risk making their own judgements but the payoff is their independence. Some children *WILL* die because they tried to cross on their own where an adult would know was too dangerous, but you have to weigh things up on larger scales.
In the long run, would that money be better off in a college account, or providing more trips to the park when the child is younger, or buying her a nicer toy at Christmas, or giving her parents some time off one day when she's screaming the house down so they can come back and deal with her refreshed and happy during the critical early years?
I'm a father of a three-month-old girl (the first baby for both me and my wife). I love her to bits and am especially relieved that she's healthy (her mother is a bit of a health-mess, genetically speaking!). I'd much rather stick the money in her Child Trust Fund, or use it to make sure she has a good car seat, or use it to pay for my mother (who occasionally babysits) to stop smoking entirely rather than just "when she's around the baby", or use it to buy her some more bottles so that mummy doesn't have to spend so much time washing th
We wanted to donate umbilical cord blood from our first-borns birth. Unfortunately no one was on hand to do it because it was a Saturday. What a waste...
Command attempted to use minibuffer while in minibuffer
If it's a boy, you can save at least $100 by not mutilating his penis. That gets you 10% of the way there!
In the next few years we'll have effective cold sleep abilities (initiated by hydrogen sulfide exposure), which will allow us to put the terminally ill into suspended animation until the tech arrives that can cure the illness. This is not to be confused with cryogenics. The body is not frozen, so no problems with ice damage. The blood is simply replaced with an oxygenated superfluid, and the body is brought down to a near freezing temperature. Then later brought back to normal temps once a cure is found.
So having stem cells available for the next 3-5 years is a good answer to a fair number cancers, internal organ damage, brain or spinal damage, or any damage requiring significant regeneration. 10-20 years from now, we'll be able to trigger stem cells at will, create naked stem cells, nanotech structural replacements for cells/tissues/organs/etc. As the tech advances the need for keeping stem cells will quickly come and go. Better solutions to the human condition will render stem cell technologies obsolete within a decade of perfecting the technology (though an additional decade of use may remain for those unable to pay for cutting edge services.)
Clearly you are not a parent. Neither am I.
However if I were I would view $1000 now and say $500 a year an unbelievable value gamble. In ten years this is all of a $6000 investment. Over on top of insurance of course.
I'm not one to gamble. But I know a good bet when I see one. I suspect that those "reprogramed" cells will not be as valuable as my natural fresh from conception ones. I suspect a doctor will go. "Holy Crap you have your own stem cells with you" well this is a no brainer procedure. You child will be fine you can take him/her home in two weeks. As apposed to well we can reprogram his/her toe nail cells but there is only a 32% chance they will take properly. We will have to hold her/him for another 4 months just to be sure.
Oh by the way. I'm fairly sure that funeral costs exceed $6000. So my bet is looking better.
When our (now 11 month old) Son was born it was an easy decision.
Over here it costs around AU$3k to store it for personal use until he is 21 years old.
Then if he still wants to keep it he has to pay extra.
It was even easier for us because the current Government was giving out a AU$4.5k Baby bonus (a once of cash lump sum). We used it for that... it seemed like the right thing to do at the time, and I suspect it still was.
Something else you should know, there are public blood banks that will store it much cheaper. The down side of this is that you have no guarantee of getting _your_ blood back. It's public so that anyone who is in need can use it.
We went private.
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
Donate it to the public bank. If this is not possible for any reason, pay and store it in a private bank. I did it, just in case, like insurance: you pay but you never want to use it.
Because, let's face it. If you can prevent the one-in-a-thousand chance of getting some exotic cancer which can be cured with some soon-to-be-discovered cell procedure, then your child will never die!
I guess this will justify also every extreme spending to prevent any one possible way they might die. So I guess you will also spend a few thousand bucks on Lego Brick Tracheotomy Kit, because, you know, otherwise.... (Well, they don't work yet, but we expect them to be useful in the future.)
Now where do I put the /sarcasm tag?
We've no odd family history, we just thought the potential uses of stem cells in the future might be worth having a stock of them guaranteed not to be rejected.
We had to arrange for an outside contractor to come in to the NHS hospital to collect the samples. The NHS staff wouldn't do it. That means that part way through labour you've got to decide it's a good time to phone the agency and have them send someone over in time for delivery.
Then when they do arrive, they're all businesslike, and trying to explain stuff. "Good morning, I'm from the agency." and of course they're met with "I don't care. I'm in the middle of f**king labour, just shut up and get on with it."
I don't think the phlebotomist had done it before, and in the end it failed. We left our baby attached for a while, because it seemed a good idea for other reasons. Sadly, that meant that by the time the phlebotomist tried to collect the blood, there wasn't really any left - the sample was too small/clogged/dried to be serviceable, so there was nothing for us to bank.
I really hope I don't end up regretting that.
You have to weigh up the cost of storage vs likelihood of use. Two points to consider. 1. I'm not convinced these cells will remain viable in storage for anything like the lifetime of your child. 2. The longer your offspring live, the more likely they'd be to need this. If they hit >60 years, for example. Of course, if I was in that position, rationality would go out the window. I'd pay it, if I could afford it, for the peace of mind-- even though I never knew the service existed until 3 minutes ago.
We donated the cord blood from both of our daughters to a public cord blood bank. There is no cost, and it is much more likely that someone will get use from it.
First of all, disclaimer: I am a molecular biologist working on gene therapy of the blood system. Cord blood banking has been around for quite a while. In the early days, storing cord blood wasn't a very viable option, mainly because we didn't know how to grow a sufficient number of blood stem cells from the tiny amount of cells in a cord blood sample. This question seem to have been solved and cord blood transplants are used in leukemia cases What makes cord blood banking even more interesting IMHO, is all the research going on in the reprogramming fieldPeople try to 'reset' a cell to a 'embryonic' state and guide its development to the desired tissue (liver and pancreatic tissues are currently under investigation) For these kinds of approaches, cord blood cells might be very suitable, since it essentially is 'newborn' tissue. In the end, it would be really good to have some cord blood saved if you need it for treatment 10-20 years from now. The chances of needing it might, however, be quite slim.
Read the fine print. You may also be charged an annual fee on top of your initial investment and there may be no guarantee that your infant's cord blood will be used.
Yes, in the future they *may* use the cord blood of an infant. And they *may* use something else. The fact that the cord blood will likely be unused is conspicuously absent from their literature. Odds are, it will be something else.
I spent quite some time waiting for my wife for appointments for our first child and came to the conclusion that this was a medical industry version of FUD.
Everyone wants their child to have the best care and is willing to spend money to get it. Cord blood advertising is based on fear and that fear motivates. Of course, there is always an element of truth to their advertisements (relying on "statistics"), but it is up to the consumer to judge how relevant it is.
There is a broader trend of oversafety for children that you will encounter further down the road where companies will convince you that you *need* their product to protect your child. All these companies will happily take your money.
Remember, even though you want to you can't protect your child 100% from everything. It's one of those parental calls you have to make.
Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
Between now and a month from now, I'll hopefully be a parent too. We've also had this discussion. Eventually we decided not to do this, because it's just very unlikely to ever help.
The technology is unproven. The amount of blood taken is quite small so it's likely to only be useful in the first few years of the child's life, any later there would be more needed. In the few cases where these cells could be used, donors can often be found. And in a few more years, we should be able to get stem cells from other tissue.
In total, we decided it wasn't worth it.
One useful page for us was this, but it's in Dutch.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
I have a 7 week old, and we used the New England Cord Blood bank because they are public. Private cord blood banks are a scam, and they are immoral. Somewhere I read somewhere that the American Board of Pediatrics quasi-condones the practice. You should be able to find a public cord blood bank that is available to you wherever you are in the US. Many states have laws requiring that local banks take your donation for free.
As far as public/private is concerned:
1) There are many diseases where you CANNOT use your own cord blood cells to treat them.
2) Since the odds of you needing the cells is low, it is preferable to bank them publicly so that if you don't use them, someone else can. Likewise, if you need someone else's cells, you have access to them.
Matching stem cells is comparable to matching bone marrow. It's not as easy as matching blood types. But once there is a large enough public supply, people should find stems cells readily available for treatments.
Many doctors offices and birthing centers will try to sell you on private banking. Don't listen: Many of them aren't even aware that public banking is possible, or don't mention it even if they do know. The salesman of the private banks come around and give them flyers and I-don't-know-what-else-kickbacks so the offices are biased. If you ask an OB/GYN what use the stem cells are, it is like asking them to bet on a roulette wheel. Not only is it unlikely now, but we have no idea what future treatments, IF ANY, will be available from the cells. So medically, there's just no good answer on the issue.
Check out the Wikipedia articles on this subject, and follow the links to the various studies. You'll find lots of good information there. If you can't find a public cord blood bank near you, check your state laws or contact your local hospital and ask.
My understanding is that while the current uses for cord blood are limited . . .
That may be true. Some of the potential maladies that could be cured by the stem cells in cord blood may be present in the banked blood, for instance genetic disorders. However, if you have more than one child, and you have blood banked for one of your other children, the other child's banked blood could be useful.
I, too, was skeptical of banking my child's blood due to the high cost, but our pediatrician and our OB/GYN both banked their first child's blood and thought it was a good idea. Ultimately, we chose to follow the examples of our doctors. You only get one shot at this. If it's not going to push you to insolvency, you should at least consider it. Some of the maladies which could one day be treated using cord blood may not respond to anything else. Also, the high initial cost can, with most of the cord blood companies, be paid with monthly payments over a few years.
Make love, not reality television.
Most countries are shunning private banks where everyone must keep their cord blood with public banks where people in participating hospitals donate the cord blood to the bank. The goal is to have enough cord blood donated to have matches for almost everyone that would need it. In fact, it is probably better to have a match from a non-relative. For example, most doctors do not want to use a child's own cord blood to treat leukemia since the reestablished immune system would probably also be susceptible to leukemia. Also treatment for genetic diseases should be done with cord blood from someone else's cord blood (ideally a non-relative). http://www.nationalcordbloodprogram.org/donation/public_vs_private_donation.html
Use the $1000 to establish a college fund. The odds that your child will use it and that it will help your child are much better.
We had this done when my daughter was born. The initial cost was ~$1400 and we pay $100 every year for storage. My daughter was born around the time that the Bush administration was making a big deal about embryonic stem cells, so getting her cord blood seemed like the most logical idea. I'm a type 1 diabetic and I am hoping that a cure can be found with stems cells. It may have been a waste of money, but I have plenty of money, it's time that I am running out of....
A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
biggest regret when my daughter was born 3yrs ago was not being able to afford the banking the slim chance it can save her life later in life is well worth the cost. if you have the funds for the initial cost then go for it
Visit my Forums?
...an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My wife and I considered that before our daughter was born, and we couldn't not do it. We had all the risk factor screening that is typical now, and our daughter doesn't have any problems, but if her umbilical blood could someday help her or someone else's child, it seems like a no-brainer.
. . . is to let your baby have it. We looked into cord blood banking for my daughter (2 months old and way too cute) and we found studies showing that most doctors clamp and cut the cord way too early anyway. When the baby is born the cord actually pulsates, pumping blood from the placenta into the baby. The studies so far show that the benefits to the baby are better blood pressure and less chance of anemia. There are probably more benefits too that we will see as more studies are done. Banking or donating cord blood necessitates clamping and draining the cord, so baby doesn't get all of his or her blood volume.
We decided it was better to get the certain benefits now than it was to get dubious benefits later. Even though my wife eneded up getting a C-section, the doctor let the cord stop pulsating before clamping. As a result, the baby was pink, healthy, and vocal after a near 32-hour labor.
To do cord banking they have to basically clamp the cord as soon as the kid is out. WHILE it is still pulsing. This means that the cord blood they bank is the blood the kid WOULD have gotten if you had let the cord stop pulsing.
I say let the kid have the blood (ie. stem cells) at birth, and use them for further development and growth.
But then, both my kids were born AT HOME with a midwife. No drugs, no unnecessary procedures, and no c-sections because the birth is not happening on the doctor's timetable (omg! he might miss his golf game!). Plus it was cheaper, and we had one-on-one attention from the midwife + assistant for the whole time, rather than anonymous nurses checking in, and a doctor who swoops in when you start pushing and that's it. All in all, a much better and less stressful experience.
Cord banking is obviously not an option for home births (just as anesthesia isn't), but I would not do it anyway just because it deprives the kid of those same cells.
"I'm curious where you get somatic cells" ...
Somatic cells are all the "normal" - already adult - cells ... you can pick a cell you want (OK, maybe not the ones that are to specialised and totally changed for that) and program it, so it behaves as you like. You could theoretically "down-program" all the cells you want ... reset to the origin, where the cell was first programmed to do what it does as an adult (somatic) cell. It should be something like "cold reboot". And after the reboot, insert "Live CD" with you favorite Linux distro ... and it runs Fedora or Ubuntu or Liver cell program ... as you wish ...
We don't know how to do it yet, but we are trying to do that ....
My 'Health Spending Account' covered it! I paid some like $300 up front and I think $125 a year for storage. If I pre-bought the 10, 15 or 20 year storage I received a much larger discount. But my 'Health Spending Account' would not cover a large multi-year payout... so each year I submit the receipt and it comes off my yearly allocated 'Health Spending Account'.
The Blood is only enough for a kid. So once you kids reach 20 they are likely to big to actually use it. We made sure that the company we used was certified so it could be donated. So once the kids are to big to actually use it then we will be donating it.
I considered it a as a minor insurance. It may not work for everything but like insurance it really nice to have it when you really need - after all you are potentially talking about your kids life. Considering the newly discovered uses being found every year who know what the medical community will come up with next. With my insurance coverage via the 'Health Spending Account' portion it was a no brainer for me.
6 and 5 years ago when I had my kids we donated the cord blood for stem cell research. Back then the effectiveness of stem cells for treating diseases was just beginning to be understood.
We did this mainly because 3 of my brother in law's children were diagnosed with Krabbe's Disease. They were treated with a ground-breaking method utilizing stem-cell transplants using cord blood. Unfortunately one of my nephew's died but the other two are so far growing up as normal kids.
Here is a little information:
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/krabbe/krabbe.htm
As you obviously know by bringing up probable changes in future stem cell policy. As others point out, there might not be any use for this material in a few years, although it's probably more significant that most people won't ever use their banked stem cells. But before we deal with hypotheticals, we should deal with established facts first.
The first question I'd ask myself is this: do we have a family history of diseases where this tissue would be useful therapeutically? If any of my siblings, nephews or nieces had something like childhood leukemia or immune system diseases, I'm looking at a very different situation than if my kids have "average" risk.
The second question I'd ask is whether I can afford it. Yes, $1000 is enough to make you stop and think, but to put that in perspective, a lot of middle class people spend well over $1000/yr on eating out for lunch. On the other hand, if you're mortgaged to your eyeballs and just barely keeping up, $1000 could mean losing your house. That would put you in a special category.
This cord blood banking was a new thing when my last child was born, and I was faced with the same decision. At the time my employment situation was pretty shaky, and I had no family history of diseases that would be treated, so I chose not to. And, as it turns out, my kids have never been seriously ill in any way. But, as I look back at that decision, I actually think it wasn't a good one. True, it turned out we didn't need it, and true $1000 seemed like a lot of money at that point to us. But the truth is, it wasn't really that much money. Over the years, $1000 has slipped through our fingers many times without our noticing, because we weren't paying attention. Just last year, we took an expensive vacation that cost several thousand dollars, and I'd much rather give that up than to do it without one of my kids.
Here's the most important point: it's important to line up all your rational arguments and consider them carefully, but in the end this is not a rational decision. It's important to be as rational as you can so you can distinguish between decisions you make as a parent on a rational basis, and the ones you make on whatever basis it was you became a parent. That basis, unless you are a subsistence farmer, is probably not something you can quantify.
Let me illustrate. One thing many insurance salesmen do is talk parents into insuring their kids. This makes no sense at all. Yes, it would be horrible if you kids died before reaching adulthood, but getting an insurance check isn't going to make it any better. What you insure when you buy life insurance isn't a person, it's an income. You buy insurance on yourself so that if you die, your kids will live in material comfort and have money for college. If your brother-in-law moved in to your basement, ate your food, left his laundry for you etc. without paying room and board, you wouldn't take out an insurance policy on him ... except in certain restricted and Hitchcockian circumstances.
There's no rational justification to put your money into life insurance on your kids. But from a financial point of view, you're better off giving up your kids for adoption, so it's irrational to keep your kids at all. While refusing to take life insurance on your kids is without a doubt a good decision because it is rational, giving your kids away because they're the financial equivalent of a parasite isn't necessarily a good idea.
That's why I don't think my decision against banking was a good one. On the percentages, it was a substantial amount of money for something that I was very, very unlikely to need. On the other hand, I've spent that amount of money many times over on things I certainly don't need.
So, think carefully, then set aside that careful thought and ask yourself: what feels right?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
!n the day you deliver your baby, you'll probably be overcome with visions of your future with your child - first smiles and steps, birthday parties and sports events, and holidays and life milestones. Your little one ever becoming seriously ill will probably be the last thing on your mind. But some parents do consider the possibility that a serious illness might someday affect their child - and they make a choice on the day their baby is born that might impact the future health of that child or even their other children. They're deciding to bank their newborn's cord blood. And if you don't, you won't be like them, the people who give a flying fuck about their own goddamned children. You'll be just like you. Ignorant, and stupid. I hope you kids die of a rare tropical disease. Then you'll wish you paid us $1000 per year won't you, you cheap bastard.
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
"Given Obama's stance on stem cells..."
Given Obama's profound arrogance and hostility towards people who hold human life in high regard...
There, fixed that for you. For the record, Obama's stance towards stem cell research only differs from Bush's in that Obama has no problem using federal tax dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research. Bush never forbade private funding of embryonic stem cell research, or public funding of non-embryonic stem cell research. You may now return to your regular preapproved pre-digested media consumption.
to better understand stem cells. The information I ran across indicated those really working with stem cell treatments generally concidered those programs dubious and some programs around the world are just plain taking the money and running. While you are probably in a semi-ethical location that probably wouldn't be the case outright. The concerns were that at this level of research: They aren't sure what they will be able to practically do with banked stem cells. They aren't sure that they won't be able to get them for free out of your own body when they finally get to the treatment phase. Just donate, it will be useful for researchers and may be a poor investment on your end otherwise.
You are buying insurance for specific types of issues ... that you hope never to use. Nobody bothers providing actuarial tables, since the rates/uses are sooooo low.
The only thing worse, IMO, is the life insurance dealers selling to new parents "protection" for their newborn. Nearly a complete waste of money, since you will spend **every penny you have** to keep your child alive first and the policies are limited to $10k payouts. What a racket.
Think of it like insurance, you have insurance for auto/health/home/etc... why not your child?
The price is a little on the high side though. Shop around and make sure you ask about the level of Cryo funding they have. Last thing you need is for the company to go under!
I'm sure you've spent about the same amount of money on something that really wasn't worth it at some point...
Plan for it and do it....
I think it's a bit like buying a (very expensive) lottery ticket. The odds are one in a gazillion that it will pay off but the payout (saved life?) is huge.
There must be many parents (and soon-to-be parents) here at Slashdot.
You must be new here. Most pregnancies require sex, and this is Slashdot.
"Even though our cells divide trillions and trillions of times they get 'old'."
They get old, but I think you are oversimplificating ageing. Some cells divide on a daily basis and some stay as they are for ages ... so there is something in the program of the cell, that makes it not to thrive for more ... brecause some can divide and divide and divide ...
I think we have to do something like that:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1106541&cid=26637553
"Isn't the trick to get the cell (whether by reprogramming, cleansing, or replacement) 'healthly' again?" ...
I agree with you, but the Umbilical cells aren't any more capable of that (reprograming, cleansing or replacement) ... they are only slightly less differentiated (Runlevel 3 / Somatic cells - Runlevel 7) .... and then again ... what is younger really in cell terms ?
You mean, that slashdot users can reproduce?
/.'ers get laid? by people who are not hookers?
Your best bet is to donate to a local public bank. The cells will be there if you need them (most likely) and it's free.
If either family has no history of certain illnesses, then I would say no. It is like buying flood insurance when you live on top of a hill. Things can happen but the probability is small. My understanding is that these chord blood storage banks are just used for your child in case of cancer, immune disorders, etc. and are not used for research. I could be wrong about that part. BTW, I am a father of one and one on the way in March.
Sic Semper MicroSoft
I wasn't really interesting in banking but I really tried to push for donation when our child was born last October. Turns out you have to pay even to donate and it's quite costly because of the way the collection and transportation is handled. If they really want people to donate they should make it free.
I wonder when we can see some FDIC insured blood banks.. or online blood banking
The poster obviously hasn't been too serious about his research...or he would have noticed that using ADULT stem cells from umbilical cords doesn't have shit to do with Obama.
My wife and I just had our first child 8 weeks ago. We could afford the 1300 dollar setup fee and the few hundred a year without causing any real issues within our budget. So that made it a pretty easy decision. Who knows what they'll be doing 20 years from now with stem cells...so it's just a CYA policy for our daughter. Anyway...like I said, it's pretty easy. If you can afford it do it...it's for your kid. If you can't afford it then no worries. Maybe in 20 years stem cells are worthless. If you've got the money your child is worth the gamble. If you don't have the money...you don't have the money.
Think about the advances in tech and medicine that you have seen in your lifetime. Now think what your kid will see. It might seem like sci-fi, but it is attainable sci-fi. Compared to the cost of having the kid in the first place, or the cost of any lifelong medical treatment that might be prevented, the costs of banking are cheap. I did it for my triplets.
There are research institutions that will accept your donated cord blood. They don't bank the stuff privately just for you, but use it for ongoing stem cell research. They depend on cord blood donations, and there's not pain involved for mother or child. All you need to do is fill out about 1 sheet of paperwork (that's all we were required to do).
We had our child's cord blood banked with CBR (http://www.cordblood.com). We are very happy to not have had to use it, and the ongoing cost ($100/yr) is pretty low.
One thing that helps keep the cost down: you get a free year if you refer somebody else to them. And there are other things they've done that we didn't expect: they send my daughter stuff from time to time (children's books, etc.). So you don't feel like you're throwing your $100 down a hole every year, and I think most of the initial cost has to do with the courier they send to collect the blood after the birth.
On the off chance that something happens and she needs the stem cells, it's nice to know we have them stored. Yes, the chance is small (thankfully), but who knows where the research will take us?
I'm reminded of that picture of a rat with a human ear on its back from a year or so ago. Accidents happen. You do what you can as a parent to provide for your children as best as you can. I'm happy to pay $100 bucks a year to give my daughter a chance that I didn't get--even if it's a long shot. And if you live in the US, you get way more than that back in taxes per child, so to me, it's not much of a sacrifice.
Privately stored umbilical cord blood can also be used for family members in need. In many cases the cord blood of a younger sibling can be used for an older sibling. See this story http://cbs3.com/health/Health.Alert.Stephanie.2.302906.html to read how this family benefited from this very aspect.
In addition cord blood is being used at Duke to treat or cure children with Cerebral Palsy (CP) which affects 1 out every 300 kids born today. The lifetime cost of a child with CP exceeds $1million. Do the math...
Delay the clamping of the cord.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
If the list of genetic predispositions which can be helped (or any genetic disease for that matter) is in your family history, then it's probably a good bet to do this. If you're looking for some sort of insurance against accidental loss of limb or from an environmental disease (non-genetic diabetes, toxic poisoning, etc) it's a much bigger gamble and probably not worth it for most people (unless you can write it down as a health expense for instance).
Just my 0.02
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I was just researching this last night and there are cheaper options, although I am not sure what the quality differences are. The cheaper banks seem to have a good track record for actual transplants. I looked at this website for comparisons:
http://parentsguidecordblood.org/content/usa/banklists/summary.shtml
HemaStem seems to have a cheap initial fee and the pricing going forward is definitely within my range. I just wonder what this table isn't telling me though, considering many other companies charge so much more.
so she picked our doctor based on the recommendations of other doctors and nurses. He's got a pretty darn good rep (and he also took the classes to do his own epidurals, et al).
His opinion: "The cord blood banking might be good if you have the income for it. You never know what they'll be able to do with these cells in the future. At the same time, realized that it might not help at all. Think of it like the rear airbags in a car. If you're in the front seats, they don't matter at all. You're in the back seat? They might just save your life."
Smart guy :p
I would recommend you NOT have the child in a hospital, but rather go to a midwife. We had our first one at the midwife's office. The second we decided to have at home, and she ended up arriving before the midwife, but that's another story.
Here's the big point: the blood in the umbilical cord is supposed to go in the baby. Right away. Not be stored away somewhere. Modern hospital deliveries are all about doing things as they weren't intended to be done. They just gotta cut that cord so they can take the baby away start poking and weighing it.
What's supposed to happen after birth is the baby is put on Momma's tummy, cord still attached. They both need a bit of a rest considering what they just went through. If you wait ten to twenty minutes before cutting the cord, it will empty itself and the blood will end up in the baby where it's supposed to be.
I'm not one to gamble. But I know a good bet when I see one.
We took a different course and donated the cord blood to a tissue bank for research and/or allogeneic transplant. This is the default choice where the baby was delivered. I think it is far more likely that a closely matching person (including our baby) somewhere would need it than we would for our baby alone.
I am not a crackpot.
I think it's scandalous and that baby jesus is crying tears of foetal blood.
Salut,
Jacques
Nah, he lost a rib in the process and just uses his mouth...
Selling baby insurance to nervous expecting parents is like shooting fish in a barrel. Cord blood banking companies know this better than anyone.
I'll keep the biology lesson short. Umbilical cord blood is a source of stem cells. For about $5,000 parents can have this blood collected at birth and stored for 20 years (an optimistic appraisal of its shelf life). The dream sold to parents is that these stem cells might be used to cure their sick child, a sibling, or even the parents themselves of a horrible disease. The benefits promised are so spectacular that it seems downright negligent to not take advantage of this miracle of science, or so the promotional literature says.
When I was a nervous expecting parent about two years ago, I put aside the glossy brochures and did a little research on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) web site. Here are a few facts I learned about cord blood banking and the stem cell treatments it promises:
Of course $5,000 sounds like a small price to pay for the promise of your child's well being, even if it's bet on a long shot. But I'll wager that putting that money in a college fund is a far better investment.
though we considered it. We just donated it. I'm kind of of the mind that by the time we would actually need something from it, hopefully we won't need it.
If that makes ANY sense at all.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
You never know what the future willbring but if you can afford it then why not do it because you can always decide to cancel it. I had ViaCord store my 2yr old daughters when she was born and could afford the first year payments at the time (3x$300) and have no problem paying the $125/yr now. Should she ever need it in the future then its there.
Jared
Put your baby's cord blood where it will do the most good - let your baby have it! There is no reason to clip the umbilical cord so quickly as is done in most hospital births - let it pulse for a minute or two. There is a natural reaction to cold air that will clamp off the umbilical birth. That is what has been going on for millions of years - let the baby have the blood!
It's a good idea to do it for the first couple of years. You can always stop the ongoing fees at a later date. I know two people who have had kids with two different and incredibility rare metabolic diseases (so rare that the fact that I've known two is ridiculously improbably). Both used cord blood for experimental treatments. I don't want to paint an unrealistic picture because in both cases it didn't materially help the kids in the long run but it did allow them to try the treatments.
I'm not saying this stuff will be useful, in fact odds are it probably won't and as research advances it may be completely worthless but in the short term $1000 is a pretty cheap safety net. It's like any risk management strategy...probability of need (extremely low) times impact (extremely high). If you think it makes sense do it...but I would.
With two young children and another due in two months, I have a strong opinion about this. You're gambling that a) there will be enough research done in the future to be able to do something with it by the time your child needs it, b) it's even usable (or necessary, give the recent adult stem cell breakthroughs) and c) you can afford to keep it banked. Maybe twenty years from now this will make sense, but not now.
My twins' cord blood is banked at CBR (www.cordblood.com). As long as we refer someone each year, we can get our storage fees waived for the year. We find it pretty easy each year to find a pregnant friend that wants to do this.
There are a few orgainzations that will take donations, the uses range from research to raw material to treat sick patients. Much better use, and often forgotten in the discussion (and free).
Unless there's some reason to believe there will be a problem, this is not a rational insurance policy, IMHO.
-t.
Ive done so much research on the topic. My son's Doctor from Mayo Clinic was telling us that stem cell can taken from our blood as well. But stem cells has become my sons only chance at real chance at curing my son's Adrenoleukodystophy. No amount of reprogramming cells will help. Cord stem cells are the purest form. Some hospitals, such as Mayo clinic have their own facilities for storing stem cells. And will do it free of charge. They will be on site at the birth of the baby to harvest the cord blood and rush it back. So in many cases you can find storage for free.
Good timing on the post. We just visited our obygyn one hour ago and signed the paper where we declined core banking. We thought long and hard about this one. Ultimately it came down to these factors. 1. We are both healthy people, eat well, excercise, etc. 2. Both of our families are genetically healthy. 3. Our pregnancy thus far has been normal. 4. We are in the 'normal' age range for pregnancy -- we are not 50 and having kids. 5. A lot of the treatable diseases are ones that run in families and the overall list is pretty short. Sure they are coming up with treatments to new diseases, but will the new treatment be available by the time my child would possibly need it? The odds are against it. 6. I recently lost my job (although money should not be an object in regards to your kids' health it is something we had to consider, but was only a very small part of our decision) That being said as with all insurance it is a gamble. I thought our initial cost was closer to $2000 with $30/month storage payments, but i could be wrong, as I said cost was not too big of a factor. I have read that if you are physically and genetically healthy then it may not be worth it. my 2 cents
+1 everything.
if he had bought the insurance?
Right now, I'm in the process of filing appeals and interviewing lawyers because my health insurance provider did not cover our son's birth. If insurance companies are willing to cheat their customers on matters as routine as childbirth, what makes you think they would treat a truly expensive condition any differently? Do you really believe that a for-profit corporation will pay a claim if they think they can get away with denying it?
Your friend would probably not have a prosthesis either way. Except now he can skip the several year litigation cycle and exorbitant legal fees.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
My wife and I decided to go with inception. Although the diseases this prevents are pretty rare the impact of most of them are very very high. To us $1000 isn't a lot of money (a small percentage of what we will shovel into our child's education) so it seemed a reasonable idea. Especially since our child is of mixed race and would have a lower probability of a match from a bank.
Pay close attention to many of the advertisements for cord blood storage. It is implied that ones own cord blood could be used if a bone marrow transplant is needed. Now consider this... If one needs a bone marrow transplant, it is often because of a genetic disease. I'm not an expert in all the causes of cancer but even cancer might have a genetic cause. Do you want to replace your genetically faulty bone marrow with your own cord blood that will have the same genetic flaw? Obviously not! There are good reasons to store cord blood but an auto transfusion to cure a genetic flaw is not one of them. Now to use the stem cells to regenerate body parts that have been damaged by a non genetic cause. That is another matter.
If there's a chance your child needs those stem cells someday, any chance at all - is your child's life worth it? (This is a rhetorical question.)
Are you crazy??? If there is a family history of a genetic abnormality then that trait will be in the cord blood as well. It will be useless to cure a genetic related disease. This is especially true of donating cord blood for others to use. If you have a family history of a genetic disease you might cause others that use the cord blood to get the family "curse".
The great thing about the ban Bush put on stem cell research regarding the origins of the stem cells is that it encouraged research into harvesting stem cells from areas other than embryos or cord blood. This will be much more beneficial than only have solutions to people with their cord blood banked.
These stem cells are the most pristine and the closest match for your childs DNA. They are possibly a very good match for you, or your wife. In the big scheme of things, the cost isnt that much. They have already been used for successful treatments. With Stem cell research about to comeback into American mainstream research, the uses are only going to grow. Do you have to have them? No. Does not having them make you a bad parent? No. Will you regret not having them? I certainly hope not. Will you regret not having the money you spent on them? You will have to decide that. Ultimately, its like a gun. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I got it when my child was born. I felt that I have the latitude to do it, and I have not regretted it. I have spent much more on much less.
My wife and I were discussing cord blood banking with our third (and presumably last) child. The up front cost was a stumbling block, but we were blessed (luck?) to run into the CBB rep at the doctors office. She talked to us, and gave us a 'family & friends' coupon that brought the up front cost down to $500. We did it, and now pay somewhere around $300/year for ongoing costs, but you can reduce that through referrals. For us, in our situation, at that time, we feel like it was a good decision. Maybe it will never be used. Maybe all diseases will be cured. Maybe one of the other kids will never need it. But maybe some day it will help someone, be it our child, me, my wife, or a total stranger. We had the funds, the information, and the wherewithal do it, so we did. I have never woken up at night and thought "gee I wish I hadn't done that". For us, it was the right decision. Look into discounts, payment plans, or other sources if you really want to do it. If not, I hope it works out also.
There was a Newsweek article on this a few weeks ago that I would recommend. I found out pretty skeptical on the ultimate usefulness of doin this.
The thought of slashdot readers producing offspring.
Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
What do you give up in order to afford it?
There is a very strong potential there, but that's all it is.
Also, does it have a storage life maximum?
For me, If I could afford it I would do it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, use the one that's not attached and pretend it's someone else.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I am a pediatric blood and marrow transplant physician and this is a question I am asked frequently. The decision is one in which a fairly significant amount of money (for most people) is being traded for a very small chance of future benefit. How much money you are willing to spend and how risk-averse you are will probably be the main factors influencing your final decision.
In my opinion, the bottom line is that for a family without any special features in the family medical history, the chances that a clinical scenario will occur in which having a stored cord blood unit from a baby, for the use of either that baby or a relative, is important are very small, but I can think of some. I have been involved in pediatric bone marrow transplant for 12 years (including training) and have not yet actually encountered such a scenario. The procedure involves no additional risk to the baby or mother during delivery, so that if collection and storage were cheap, then it would be easy to say to do it just in case, even though the chance it would ever be useful is very small. However, given the actual costs involved, in my opinion, storage of cord blood for private use is not cost effective compared to other ways that you can spend money to improve safety (for families with no special features in their medical history).
As other people have also pointed out, not every collected cord blood unit is actually usable. We recently had a case at my hospital where the parents had saved the cord blood of a sibling, but the number of cells in the saved cord was so low that we had to collect bone marrow from the sibling anyway.
Family medical history that would lead me to recommend collection would be a sibling who was diagnosed with a disease that can be treated with cord blood transplant (acute leukemia being the most common one). Because of the risk of relapse, this applies whether treatment is complete or not. A weaker indication would be a family history (or a prenatal diagnosis in the baby) of a genetic disorder that either can now or theoretically could be treated in the future with a cord blood transplant. This is much more hypothetical, but it is theoretically possible that the hematopoietic stem cells in the cord blood could be useful in a gene therapy protocol.
The (very sad if it ever actually happened) hypothetical scenario that I can think of in which a stored cord blood unit would be the most useful would be if a baby was born, the cord blood was collected and stored. That child subsequently died. At a later time, a sibling was diagnosed with a disease (like a relapsed acute leukemia) in which transplant is indicated. The stored cord blood unit was a match for the sibling and had an adequate number of cells, but no one else in the family was a match. Fortunately, the chances of something like this happening are very, very small.
In Canada (Alberta and Quebec, afaik), these cell banks are nationalized.
In Quebec, a few hospitals cooprate with the national blood donor bank (Hema-Quebec) to donate the cells to them. It's free and can help kids with leukemia. It's also useful for science (alot of people donate).
Also, so far the only treatment (in Quebec) is for leukemia on kids less than 50kg, otherwise it requires too many blood cells (they use cells from 3-4 donors, one is not enough).
On the other hand, I remember reading about stem cells transplants in Korea for bone marrow that had been successful a few years ago, and they were done using public stem cells banks, not private. i.e. using stem cells from other people.
Although the compatibility for stem cells is apparently rather small. On the other hand, they keep finding out new ways to generate stem cells from adults..
With private cell banks, there are very few odds it will be useful: the cells may die during transport, there will probably not be enough cells for a cure, no guarantees on the freezing, etc. and just plain looks like a scam.
Before my daughter was born two years ago some members of our family pressured us into doing this, saying that it may even cure another family member. We did quite alot of research on it. Even the hospital staff were skeptical about it.
As others have mentioned, better to invest that money into a savings account and use it for education, other health services if necessary, etc.
> The blood only keeps for ten years
Not true. Cord blood stem cells can be stored indefinitely:
The New York State Health Department Guidelines for cord blood banking state that umbilical stem cells can be stored indefinitely under liquid nitrogen. The policy states, "There is no evidence at present that cells stored at -196C in an undisturbed manner lose either in-vitro determined viability or biologic activity. Therefore, at the current time, no expiration date need be assigned to cord blood stored continuously under liquid nitrogen." Current data reflects that cord blood cells that have been stored for fifteen years have the same composition as they did at the time of storage.(3) All science involving cryogenic storage of cells also indicates that the cells should remain viable indefinitely.
> the amount of blood in one umbilical cord isn't enough to treat an adult with
Also not true. The cord blood CAN be used by adults:
To date, umbilical cord blood has been used in more than 8,000 transplants for children and adults. In many cases, the cord blood was used by the baby's sibling. Other transplants have occurred for the newborn himself, the newborn's mother, father, and the newborn's cousin.
Some other poster said they couldn't be used for much, but CBR lists close to 100 diseases you can use cord blood treatments for.
And on the topic of the AAP article about why private banking is bad, this is from the AAP site:
. What is the difference between private cord blood banking and public cord blood banking?
Private cord blood banking is storing the baby's cord blood for his/her own future use or use for a family member should the need arise. Alternatively, public cord blood banking, or donating, means that the baby's cord blood is stored in a cord blood bank and is available to anyone in need of a transplant or may be used research purposes.
So the big difference is that if you donate it to a public bank, you might not get it back. Versus if you store it privately, it is yours forever.
Don't blame the private banks for the lack of cord blood in the public ones. There would be plenty of cord blood to go around if the hospitals banked it themselves:
Currently, only a small percentage of the four million births every year in the U.S. result in family-banked cord blood, and even if that percentage increases, there will always be a generous cord blood supply for the public banks-if funding is available. More than 90 percent of families do not have access to a public cord blood bank that accepts donations. Other factors also significantly limit cord blood donation eligibility, such as maternal exposure to viruses, tattoos, and international travel. In fact, recent reports from public banks convey that only 30 percent of donated cord blood ends up being banked. The limited cord blood supply in public banks is 100 percent due to lack of funding-not private banks.
Here are the options that I would say you base your decision on:
1. Do you have the funds?
2. If your kid gets sick later in life and you didn't have it, will you be ok or will you freak out and obsess over not having banked it?
3. Are you ok with the odds that your kid won't get sick? The odds are that you WON'T need it, so if you're not a #2, then you will probably be ok.
4. What's your opinion on stem cell research? If you think it's bad, then pay for your own private stem cell storage. Otherwise vote YES on laws making it legal for states to do stem cell research so the hospitals a
It should come out to a cost-benefit analysis for you and your family. I'll explain my family's decision to bank my son's cord blood and then try to give you an idea of what you might want to think about in your case.
When my son was born, we did bank the cord-blood. But I'm under no illusions as to any potential benefits.
My wife has a nephew with Cystic Fibrosis. He has no siblings, nor is likely to have any. There is a slim chance that a treatment might be developed within his lifetime that could utilize stem cells from cord blood, and a slim chance that our son could be a close enough match to make it work. Slim chance * slim chance = very slim chance. I also suppose there is a chance that our son could develop something that could be treated in the future from his banked cord blood, but for now all is well.
My in-laws paid 100% of all the cord-bank fees. They let us decide on our own, but let us know they'd pay for it if we decided to do it. In the end it all came to a few thousand dollars.
We decided to do it. It cost us nothing other than a very minor hassle (you've got to get the doctor to do it, not a problem, and then you've got to arrange for the courier. The company made it trivially easy, but you still have to do a phone call). And while there aren't any current benefits, a few thousand dollars is little to pay for the tiny bit of hope it provides my sister-in-law.
But for other people considering it:
0. Realize there are few current benefits that can be derived from this, you're putting away something in the hope that IFF something happens and IFF someone develops a treatment that can utilize this material, you've at least got the raw materials at hand.
1. Can you afford the fees?
2. Do you have an expectation that your son, daughter, or a future sibling might need this? Easy question to answer if genetic screening shows one of the parents carriers for something or the baby is already known to have a problem. Harder if everything seems to be fine right now.
3. Do you have a close relative that this might help?
For us, the cost issue didn't matter, and we had an easy "yes" answer to #3, so the hardest thing was researching the options and choosing the company.
Would we have banked it if my in-laws hadn't paid for it? Probably not.
Would we have banked it if we didn't have a nephew with a severe genetic disorder? Probably not.
But we did have these conditions, so it was an easy decision.
I wish you luck and good heath for you and your family.
- Steve
This is just one of a number of scare tactics corporations use to worry parents into buying their crap. You are betting $1,000+ dollars that (a) they will develop a treatment that uses stem cells, (b) the stem cells that your body produces throughout life will somehow not be useable and (c) that your child develops the medical condition which they can treat with these cells.
Instead of relying on this extremely tortuous chain of random chance why not invest that $1,000 for their education? Chances are they will almost certainly need that when they group up.
My advice is to not prematurely clamp the cord, as almost all OBs will do. Instead, have a homebirth, let the blood go into the baby for a few minutes after the birth, then tie the cord off. Works like a charm, and my 3-year-old has enjoyed an extremely healthy life so far. Another is due in April, and we'll be doing the same thing for him.
Instead of banking the cord, I would like to suggest you delay clamping of the cord and let the newborn have the blood themselves, when they're born. There are many benefits to this:
Prevention of anemia, Jundice, and many others.
The above articles all state that there is no scientific reason for early clamping of the cord, and imply that there are significant benefits to waiting until the cord has finished pulsing to clamp and cut.
If you practice natural childbirth, and the baby will be breastfeeding (important), the cord should not be cut until it has pumped itself out (back into the baby). It only takes a few minutes. The only reason the cord gets cut so early is because it's easier to tend to the drugged-up mother (and baby) due to the medicalization of western childbirth.
Look into a Bradley Method course for more on how childbirth in western cultures is treated more as a medical event than a natural process. Look into Hypnobirthing for better training on how to actually have a natural childbirth.
The movies of newborn babies still attached by the cord crawling (yes crawling!) up the mothers belly and finding *on their own* the nipple are drawdropping. Evolution is a marvelous thing.
My wife and I looked at banking it and it was too expensive for us for the possible return. We thought about donating it but the hospital was not keen on collecting and sending it off... too much work for them I guess.
Then we read that it is good for the baby to get the last few pulses of blood back from the cord. When we wrote our birth plan for the hospital staff we included this request which they seemed more than happy to accommodate (apparently this is getting to be more common).
Unfortunately for us, his cord was short and wrapped around his neck and this was not an option as it had to be cut in several places to get him out safely.
I would way the cost benefit of banking/donating and letting the little guy keep what is his. It helps him keep his blood levels high and is less likely going to require other treatment if he can't replace the blood fast enough
We donated the cord for research usage which at least at the time was a standard option. If something develops quickly there is a matching cord if not you did some good for everyone.
My wife and I decided to bank the cord blood from her last pregnancy. We feel it is like an insurance policy. It could be used for anyone in our immediate family, and that is what sold me on it. It may never pay out, but it is there when you need it.
I read an article recently, where they mention harvesting stem cells from wisdom teeth to be used in this same way. So maybe save your money.
When you shave bush you get Obama.
*girls shave and guys groan*
An interesting question. Is it worth buying a cup of coffee on your way to work? Not for me, can't stand the stuff. But for many people, what you get for your money is worth it, so they do it. Regarding the question of the cord blood banking, all I can say is: We did it. Not "I would do it" but I actually forked over the cash and did it. Does that mean we will ever see any benefits from having done it? Not necessarily. So?
My wife and I harvested my daughter's cord blood. My mother-in-law paid for it. We were in Italy at the time. Some guy showed up on a scooter to pick up the blood. I would not have spent my own buck on it, and I would not bet a hair on my head that the blood is in any useful condition now. The whole deal seems shady.
The doctor didn't want to miss his tee time.
He sliced a HUGE episiotomy, causing lots of
needless injury and resulting agony.
My wife got almost the same treatment. In that
case, the doctor's house was flooding and he
wanted to get home to deal with the water.
...but then someone came into the recovery room with a stack of legal contracts an inch thick for my wife and I to sign. I know that most people will sign whatever is put in front of them without reading, but I'm not one of those people. They made it so complicated to donate cord blood that we just sent them off and ditched the idea. If they want parents to donate cord blood, they need to make it an easy process.
A recent study (which I don't have time to dig up) showed that those babies whose umbilical cord was not cut for a few minutes after birth had a higher blood volume even several months later, which would to improve their health.
Makes sense, doesn't it?? The baby's soft body just got squeezed through a tight passage. Why not let them expand a little and reabsorb more blood?
So perhaps we should hold off on deciding what WE will do with this blood that might be of use to the creature it was intended for.
The baby's soft body just got squeezed through a tight passage from their head downwards, which means they already lost blood back into their mother. So who are we to discuss what WE will do with the blood that would still flow back into the baby immediately after birth ??? A recent study (which I won't bother to dig up) showed that leaving the baby attached to the mother for a few minutes greatly increased their blood volume, even months later, which would seem significantly improve their health. This whole consideration is another disgraceful example of heartless science treating voiceless people as material "resources".
Don't bother. This is a money-laundering scheme --- I don't mean that the people doing it think of it that way, or that they have malevolent motives. However, stem cell research is basically at the level of "alchemy" and the ads I've seen are all targeted at parents' biggest insecurities. Don't give in to them.
I once had a job interview for one of these blood-banking companies: the job would have been to call doctor's offices and make sure they were placing flyers in prominent places where pregnant women could see them. They rejected me for the job because they didn't like the look on my face --- no joke. I knew there was something morally questionable about it, and this was before I was a parent. Now that I am, I think you'll have plenty of stuff to worry about without another bill for a useless service that is predicated on fear.
Of any fears you should be tackling, you should be dealing with your fears related to birthing.
Joel
Debating umbilical cord banking means you're sold on the American system of child delivery, which is designed not for health but for profit.
You've most-likely signed up to have drugs which "reduce the pain" (adding expensive complications), and are paying a OBGYN who most-likely hasn't even tried to answer your questions let-alone give you strengthening exercises to prepare you.
At birth, the umbilical cord is pulsating (alive, working). It's sending the blood to the baby. It only takes 20 minutes and prevents anemia (because there is not much iron in breastmilk or formula), as well as not sapping your child's strength (typical of when blood is drawn).
While you're at it, consider a midwife+doula birth. It's cheaper, *safer*, and if you want to rush to the hospital for a breach birth, that's always available.
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
I had my son's cord blood banked 4 years ago. I recently had a daughter but we didn't save hers.
The reasons i DID do my sone were thus:
1 - We had some spare cash to cover the up front costs and the yearly maintenance is only $75 so its nothing really.
2 - The technology has not been proven but i want to help push it forward because any progress we can make in this area is invaluable. So im not counting on ever being able to use it, just the fact that it MIGHT be possible someday.
The reason we didn't do my daughters are:
1 - The tech is still unproven, we had done my son's as kind of an experiment and we didn't think it was worth it the second time around because of the up front costs.
2 - There is a chance that if anything comes from the tech that my sons cells could be used with my daughter.
Basically I wanted to contribute *something* to try and make this a successful technology but we didnt want to go all in because there is significant risk.
Hope this helps, probably not because we went different ways each time, but i hope you can see my point.
Private cord blood banking is a form of health insurance for both the baby and other family members. So if you can afford it, it's worth serious consideration. And while it's pricey, there are discounts to be had. For example, http://www.cord-blood-banking-coupon.com/ And many banks let you set up a gift registry so family and friends can contribute and help you afford this gift for your baby. If you still can't afford to privately bank, donation is a great option, although there's a several hundred dollar fee in many cases.
If anyone is expecting a baby and considering banking their baby's cord blood, here's a little financial incentive: $250 Coupon for Cord Blood Registry. Katy and I decided to bank our babies' cord blood because we figured that should they ever, God forbid, develop a condition that could be treated or cured with stem cells, their cord blood would provide the best source. Finding a good bone marrow match can be next to impossible, and adult stem cells currently only have limited uses. And we're not holding our hopes on embryonic stem cells, given the US government's current stance. Cord blood banking, for us, is sort of like life insurance for a horrible event, but with a happier ending: our child gets to live.
I'm posting the coupon code here for anyone who's expecting a baby and considering cord blood banking:
Call 1-888-227-2460
Or visit www.cordblood.com
Mention this code to receive your discount: M1971
We found the coupon here - http://enonprofits.org/cbr.html
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,605606,00.html