JoyNChrist
10-23-2006, 07:45 PM
DH and I had discussed donating our newborn's cord blood, and it seemed like a good idea. We're not interested in private banking (way too expensive and the benefits are sketchy), but we're both blood and organ donors and thought that donating our newborn's cord blood for use or research would be a great way to possibly save a life someday.
But I recently read an article discussing the benefits of letting the baby "keep" the cord blood - not cutting the umbilical cord until it stops pulsing, thereby letting the cord blood travel into baby's system. Here's the section of the article I found most interesting...
"Because we didn't clamp or cut his cord, Jacob received his placentas final gift to him—a transfusion of an extra 100 milliliters or so of his own blood. This blood had been stored in his placenta and was designed to assist him at birth by filling the blood vessels in his lungs, kidneys, liver, gut, and skin—all the organs he hadn't used in utero—with oxygen-rich blood. Jacob's placental transfusion was also a safety net, able to tide him over if his breathing had not been established straight away.
If we had clamped Jacob's cord immediately after birth, he would also have missed out on the extra iron—about a month's supply—contained in his placental transfusion, as well as his own rich store of stem cells? Some experts in this area would add that we may have given Jacob protection from cerebral palsy, attention deficits, and perhaps even autism, because we allowed his brain to receive the full blood supply intended for him by Mother Nature. (Most of this extra blood is transferred in the first few minutes, but a longer delay in cord clamping—until the cord stops pulsing, or longer—allows the baby to regulate his or her own blood volume.)
All other mammals, and attendants in most traditional cultures, cut or bite through the baby's cord only after the placenta has been delivered—and with good reason. Jacob's placental transfusion reduced the size of his placenta by 100 ml, and my uterus was able to contract more efficiently around it, thus decreasing my chances of hemorrhaging. Jacob's less bulky placenta was also easy—and pleasurable—to birth."
Sound good, huh? But I'm wondering how true all of this is - do the benefits of letting baby keep the cord blood outweigh the possibility to save another's life through cord blood donation? I'm interested in reading more about the medical benefits if a newborn's cord-cutting is delayed until the UC stops pulsing. But so far I haven't been able to find much additional information. If anyone has an opinion or additonal articles that would help me make the decision, I'd really appreciate it.
(By the way, the full text of the article can be found here - http://www.mothering.com/articles/pregnancy_birth/birth_preparation/amazing_placenta.html - but I think I copied everything that references cord blood.)
Looking forward to hearing your opinions...TIA!
But I recently read an article discussing the benefits of letting the baby "keep" the cord blood - not cutting the umbilical cord until it stops pulsing, thereby letting the cord blood travel into baby's system. Here's the section of the article I found most interesting...
"Because we didn't clamp or cut his cord, Jacob received his placentas final gift to him—a transfusion of an extra 100 milliliters or so of his own blood. This blood had been stored in his placenta and was designed to assist him at birth by filling the blood vessels in his lungs, kidneys, liver, gut, and skin—all the organs he hadn't used in utero—with oxygen-rich blood. Jacob's placental transfusion was also a safety net, able to tide him over if his breathing had not been established straight away.
If we had clamped Jacob's cord immediately after birth, he would also have missed out on the extra iron—about a month's supply—contained in his placental transfusion, as well as his own rich store of stem cells? Some experts in this area would add that we may have given Jacob protection from cerebral palsy, attention deficits, and perhaps even autism, because we allowed his brain to receive the full blood supply intended for him by Mother Nature. (Most of this extra blood is transferred in the first few minutes, but a longer delay in cord clamping—until the cord stops pulsing, or longer—allows the baby to regulate his or her own blood volume.)
All other mammals, and attendants in most traditional cultures, cut or bite through the baby's cord only after the placenta has been delivered—and with good reason. Jacob's placental transfusion reduced the size of his placenta by 100 ml, and my uterus was able to contract more efficiently around it, thus decreasing my chances of hemorrhaging. Jacob's less bulky placenta was also easy—and pleasurable—to birth."
Sound good, huh? But I'm wondering how true all of this is - do the benefits of letting baby keep the cord blood outweigh the possibility to save another's life through cord blood donation? I'm interested in reading more about the medical benefits if a newborn's cord-cutting is delayed until the UC stops pulsing. But so far I haven't been able to find much additional information. If anyone has an opinion or additonal articles that would help me make the decision, I'd really appreciate it.
(By the way, the full text of the article can be found here - http://www.mothering.com/articles/pregnancy_birth/birth_preparation/amazing_placenta.html - but I think I copied everything that references cord blood.)
Looking forward to hearing your opinions...TIA!