"Middle class" is hard to define, so I used the median household income in 2004, where the head of household was 25-29 years old- $41700 (here's my source ), which I'll round to $42k.
In 2010 the average age of the transplant recipient was 39. (I did some work with the numbers available here ). I decided to use average, though I can see why you might want to use a different method.
If you assume a $1500 initial cost and $100/year the total cost to store it for 39 years is 5400, or about 13% of their annual income. Even if it was used when the child was only 10 years old, it would still cost $2500, or 6% of their annual income (another way to think of it is 3 weeks' salary).
Also, the initial cost is already occuring at a time when a young couple is being hit pretty hard financially. They are used to their income supporting 2 people, and now it has to support 3 people (one of which is super-expensive!)
I would advise not to do the procedure in the scenario you gave. I do think it is a great idea to donate them to public banks though. In a public bank it is near certain to be of use somehow, whereas if you just store it, the chances of it actually being useful are slim.
Question- What happens to the stem cells when the person storing them dies? Are they then donate to a public stem cell bank?
1) Yes. I wish my umbilical cord had been banked, not that I am currently unhealthy. By the time the child is 50-60 years old, I expect advances will have been made which allow stem cells to greatly ameliorate problems associated with being that age, though it's possible that by that time there will be some other easier way of getting stem cells.
Is this a minority position?
ETA: Daenerys' comment makes a lot of sense. I was considering $100 to be trivial when compared to the possible benefits but it looks like that may not be the case.
Is this a minority position?
I would have thought the majority position was 'never really thought about it'.
though it's possible that by that time there will be some other easier way of getting stem cells.
By 50-60 years? Good heavens yes. The question for us was whether it would be available in 5 or 15 years (though of course on the 5 year horizon, FDA approval could not be guaranteed). With no risk factors, we declined the expense.
I had not heard of this until recently, and I doubt I am alone. I will quote from this source, which looks OK (there is also this).
What is the idea?
How the cells are collected:
How the cells are stored:
How the cells can be used:
The major upside:
The monetary cost:
Is it useful as "biological insurance"? Some say no:
Some say yes:
Three questions for LW:
1) Based on the above and/or outside information, would you recommend this procedure for two parents in their mid-20s living in the US with a middle class income whose babies will have no known risks for disease?
2) This seems like a good analogy for brain preservation using cryogenic nitrogen. Why do you think that umbilical cord stem cell banking is FDA regulated whereas brain preservation procedures are not?
3) Instead of privately banking them, it is possible to donate umbilical cord stem cells to public banks, for the benefit of others. Similarly, it is possible to donate one's postmortem brain (and organs) to the public, for the benefit of others. In both cases, there is the third option to do neither. In making these decisions, how do you weigh your own interests against those of others?