By Malu Lambert

“Save your child’s life!” the advert states in bold. This immediately catches heavily pregnant Anna’s eye. She continues reading—“Safeguard your child’s medical future by banking stem cells from the umbilical cord.” A first time mother-to-be, Anna is anxious to do everything right. If she can protect her baby from diseases such as multiple sclerosis, leukaemia and even cerebral palsy—as the advert claims—why shouldn’t she bank her baby’s cord?

Stem cells are the master cells that each of us are born with. They have the ability to generate into any type of cell—a blank canvas, if you will—and potentially provide a miracle cure for many debilitating diseases.

This is why doctors, scientists and politicians are hot under the collar about the topic. Some see the potential for curing disease and increasing longevity, while others view the use of stem cells as abhorrent and against nature.
Not new to controversy, stem cells first came to public attention through the use of embryonic stem cells, and had the public recoiling in horror because initially they were taken from aborted human foetuses.

Scientists say that cord cells can be used to treat haematopoietic (blood cell) and genetic disorders. Supporters also argue that treatments that aren’t available now may be available somewhere in the next 20 years (the length of time the cords are banked).
Harvesting umbilical cords and banking the stem cells in the blood is a relatively new science. A baby’s cord blood can be saved and stored without any of the ethical dilemmas involved in acquiring cells from aborted human foetuses. The procedure is also non-invasive. The baby’s umbilical cord is usually removed straight after birth and if it isn’t banked, it’s discarded as medical waste anyway.

Cost is a factor, however. In the UK, harvesting the umbilical cord will set you back approximately R15 000, while in South Africa you can expect to pay almost double. That’s a lot of money for parents already burdened by gynaecology and confinement costs—especially considering there is only a one in 20 000 chance of ever needing to use the cells. The likelihood of an under 20-year-old needing stem-cell treatment is low. Many disorders appear only much later in life.
In fact, it’s more likely that a sibling will make use of the cells. For reasons unknown, donor stem cells are often more adaptable than a patient’s own cells, and take more easily to affected tissue. This adds fuel to the designer baby debate, most recently illustrated in the movie My Sister’s Keeper, starring Cameron Diaz.

‘Designer babies’ or ‘saviour siblings’ are created for the purpose of donating their umbilical cord blood to a sibling. Adam Nash, from Colorado in the United States, was one such baby. His older sister Molly Nash was born with Fanconi anaemia—a genetic disease that leads to bone marrow failure.

Her parents desperately wanted to save her and needed to have another child, and fast. Doctors created as many embryos as possible and then selected one that was the closest tissue match to Molly—and that didn’t carry the genes for Fanconi anaemia. Fast forward nine months, and Adam was born. His cord cells saved Molly’s life.
This raises ethical hackles, of course. If we can choose genes, we could arguably also choose our baby’s eye colour, personality and even athletic ability—ostensibly playing God.

To go back to mother-to-be Anna’s case. The advert could be accused of being exploitative of her fear as a new parent. On the other hand, if you have deep pockets, or a good reason to fear the possibility of some genetic disorder manifesting itself later, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t bank your baby’s cord cells.

For more information on Cord Cell Banking visit www.cryo-save.com