During my pregnancy, there was a time when we had to decide whether we wanted to save the cord blood to extract stem cells and ensure some amount of disease cure for our child. At that time, I felt that with around 30 years ahead of us for that, I am not too sure whether these stem cells can not be obtained by then in some other manner. So, I decided at that time not to bank my cord blood and not to choose to preemptively extend my and Trisha's life. And, today a friend send me this link.
Menstrual blood is said to have the same cord blood properties and women can choose to store this blood at any time, to use at a further point in time. And this is also seen as less controversial in terms of ethics and such in comparison to embryonic stem cells.. And this is not a blank trial, there has been menstrual blood stem cells used to differentiate to nerve cells in vitro and treat strokes, so there is really a use in doing this procedure.
One statement which struck me as weird in the article was that the author says at the end of it all.
Lots and lots of details would have to be worked out in order for this to become a reality. And, of course, there's the ick factor to overcome. Would you really want to be the recipient of stem cells plucked from the contents of a woman's monthly cycle? If it could save your life, I'll bet you would.
I do not know why is it that blood drawn from a woman and shed by a woman seen as so different. I am sure that if there was an option to just draw blood from the uterus and then use the stem cells, there would have been no problem. Here, the woman is just shedding it and giving an option of using it, and there seems to an ice factor associated with it! What is the problem, I just do not get it.