[elisabeth]

The ethical problem I am worried about is that the cord blood would have a much higher probability of being used to help a stranger than it would my own child or someone in our family. So I am thinking I should donate it hoping it would save someone else's life, knowing that I would seek a donor from a public blood bank if my child needed it.

I am definitely looking into whether I can bank it privately, but maybe be notified by the bank if someone else was found to be a match and needed it. This may be the best solution

[asgardshill]

My main concern would be accepting blood from a stranger from a public blood bank. Although it is filtered, there are just so many nasty little pathogens in blood that I would have a high pucker factor needing or using it. That is why I suggested that you save it for your own family's needs the first couple of years (again, if you can even do that), then release it to public availability afterward.

I am unfamiliar with the quantities of blood that are saved in this way. Is there enough to split it into two separate entities? You could donate one and save the other.

[chuckles]

It would be nice to have the exact DNA match for your child, but my understanding is that the advantage of cord blood stem cells is that they adapt to whatever environment you put them in. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding. At most, your child might have to take some imunosupresant if the sample was from someone else, but I don't think so. The supposed advantage of all this stem cell bruhaha is the cells can be manipulated, BY THE HUMAN BODY! The host is supposed to utilize them for repair. If the host would reject them, what's the point?

Ask a doctor.

[HairOfTheDog]

So I am thinking I should donate it hoping it would save someone else's life, knowing that I would seek a donor from a public blood bank if my child needed it.

That sounds like the right answer to me.