Wisconsin Personal Care Survey Report Of Findings: Fill & Download for Free

What has contributed more to humans being moral, biology or religion?Religion is the only practice that aspires to teaching and advocating the highest levels of morality. How effective this is varies—obviously—but whether or not individuals periodically fail at its practice does not determine whether someone else will respond to the teaching religion offers and succeed. Some kids fail and drop out of school; we keep offering education anyway.Overall, religion probably really does make a positive contribution to morality in humans that practice it. There is evidence of correlation between active religious practice and lower incidences of alcohol abuse, out of wedlock births, theft, and drug and alcohol abuse. Whether or not that translates to “morality” depends on your definition of morality to some degree.Imprisonment is a possible measure of morality, and atheists may be under-represented in the prison population—but it’s hard to nail that down.Amongst the incarcerated, 50.6 % claim to be Protestant and 14.5% claim Catholicism. According to PEW, 65% of polled American adults identified themselves accordingly in 2019.[1] That’s a representative sample and is to be expected if all other factors are equal.Atheists aren’t on this chart. The nearest sample is “no religious preference” at 10.6%, but it’s been shown that the societal group known as “nones” is not all atheist, therefore the part of the group in prison probably isn’t all atheist either. If they were, that would mean there is a disproportionate number of atheists imprisoned because, while we have no real measure of the number of atheists in society in general either, the closest estimate that we do have is about 3%.But honestly, there’s no way to know for sure how many atheists are in prison or society, so whether or not the atheist prison population is representative or not can’t really be answered either way.Plus, incarceration is influenced by many factors besides religion—or no religion— such as race, economic status, education and family.Taking into consideration the possibility of a lower presence of atheists in prison, it is still true that studies have abounded for the last twenty years that show religion provides a “moderate deterrent effect” on criminal behavior, especially in relation to shoplifting, music piracy, drug use, and alcohol abuse, among both adults and adolescents.[2][3][4][5][6][7]A 2013 article which cites governmental sources entitled “Is Europe proof that intact families don’t really matter?” provides data which shows that the highly secular European countries of Sweden, France and Denmark have higher illegitimacy rates than the more religious European countries of Greece, Switzerland, Italy, Poland and Spain.[8]Everyone agrees illegitimacy is a social issue, but many also assert aspects of a pragmatic, or practical, ‘morality’ attached to it because in too many instances the children born out of wedlock are disadvantaged by it.A Detroit study found that about 70 percent of juvenile killers did not live with both parents. A study of seriously delinquent girls in California showed 93 percent came from broken homes. A survey of juvenile delinquents in custody in Wisconsin found that fewer than one-sixth grew up in intact families. Sixty percent of rapists had single-parents (or none). Exactly how illegitimacy is connected to crime is not fully understood.[9] All studies of this phenomenon indicate religion fosters values and virtues that support marriage and decrease out of wedlock births. [10]Religion encourages people to donate to charity. American households donated a median $375 to congregations, $150 to religiously identified nonprofits, and $250 to secular charities in 2012. Black Protestants, followed by Roman Catholics and Jews, were the most likely to give out of the desire to help the needy.[11]People don’t donate to their congregations so much as through them, since churches use the money given to them to pay for the facility and staff then distribute the rest to the community, both local and global, in a vast variety of ways.The Catholic Church is the World's biggest charitable organization.Religion encourages people to care for one another.Marriage and religiosity generally have far-reaching, positive effects. A growing body of research documents an association between religious involvement and better outcomes on a variety of physical health measures, including problems related to heart disease, stroke, hypertension, cancer, gastrointestinal disease, as well as overall health status and life expectancy.There is emerging literature that shows a positive effect of religiosity on educational attainment, a key determinant of success in the labor market. These studies suggest a potentially important link between religious involvement during childhood and adolescence and subsequent economic well-being as an adult.Several studies have documented that family religious involvement promotes stronger ties among family members and has a positive impact on mothers’ and children’s reports of the quality of their relationship.Young people who grow up having some religious involvement tend to display better outcomes in a range of areas, such as a lower probability of substance abuse and juvenile delinquency, a lower incidence of depression, delayed sexual debut, more positive attitudes toward marriage and having children, and more negative attitudes toward unmarried sex and premarital childbearing. [12]Objections to religion are generally based on distortions, misinformation and bias. [13]Does religion, in actuality—not just in theoretical teaching—but in actuality, produce the real effect of moral development in its followers?To a degree, at the very least, it apparently does.Has biology contributed to moral development?One popular claim concerning biology is that evolution produced morals such as empathy through the beneficial effects of cooperative communal behavior. Humans and other primates are all social, group-living species. They do cooperate, so the hypothesis seems entirely plausible.However: evolution is not capable of selecting for something.So, let’s say cooperation really did make a difference for someone’s survival at an early stage in human development. That would matter to that individual, but it wouldn’t have any impact on evolutionary development if it stopped with that individual. In order to be an evolutionary development, the characteristic of empathy and cooperation that evolved to aid survival must be passed on to the next generation.Which is why: Reproductive success is the ultimate measure of selection.If cooperation was the means by which evolution introduced empathy and morality into human nature, then it must have increased the likelihood of reproductive success for it to be selected and passed on.Those that practiced it survived and multiplied, and those that didn’t—didn’t. We can’t go back in time and study cavemen directly and see if this is correct.We can study other primates.We should be able to see evidence of cooperation increasing reproductive success in other primate groups which would support that this is what happened in our own.We can look at primate behavioral tactics that confer an advantage to some over others, either before or after copulation.We can measure the effects of these tactics, and traits such as body and canine size or status-dependent ornaments (Plavcan 2004).We can look at optimal schedules of growth and maturation.We can measure the different sexual characteristics and behaviors between the genders and how they relate to male competition.We can record who has babies and who doesn’t and who has the most and how well they survive.What we observe is this: in the majority of cases, access to receptive females is rank-dependent, with alpha males enjoying the highest reproductive success (Altmann et al. 1996, Alberts et al. 2003).In most species, males establish their rank through dominance based on age, level of strength and aggression, and their dispersal status: among social animals a dispersed individual—one who left their birth group—must find and join a new group, which can lead to a loss of social rank. [14] [15]Among the factors affecting reproduction for males, cooperation isn’t on the list.The same is true of females: For females, social position—rank—is the leading factor in reproductive success.[16] Conflicts between males and female orangutans over mating have engendered antagonistic strategies, such as coercion by males and selective resistance by females. Orangutans are exceptional among mammals for their high levels of forced copulation.[17]Under conditions of low resource availability such as drought, or social stress, lower ranking females suffer. Dominant females take what they need without concern, compassion, or cooperation with subordinate females. They don’t share. They don’t cooperate. They don’t protect the weak out of empathy.[18] The infants of subordinate females die; the infants of the dominant survive.These studies all indicate that other primates—those that are not us—have not—still—after all these millions of years—evolved ‘cooperation’ as a path to reproductive success.If we evolved ethically while other primates have not, that would mean we evolved differently than all other primates, so that not only doesn’t help us answer this question—it creates other issues.‘We’re unique’ doesn’t provide an adequate naturalist explanation in itself, and while we can assume the naturalist model, ‘uniqueness’ precludes ever being able to provide evidence to support it.Therefore, I don’t find a naturalistic biological explanation for morality that actually stands up to examination.A further examination of biology shows its somewhat chilling contribution to the darker characteristics of mankind. There are traits that can be found in other animal species showing that Cruelty is an aspect of personality derived from biology that has been passed on — at least to some degree.A group of psychologists at the University of British Columbia, (including Del Paulhus and his student, Kevin Williams), defined a Dark Triad of identifiable personality traits almost twenty years ago. It was later extended into a Tetrad. These traits can be found in humans and other primates and even other species.Machiavellianism (manipulative, self-interested, deceptive),Psychopathy (antisocial, remorseless, callous)Narcissism (grandiose, proud, lacking empathy).Everyday Sadism (the enjoyment of cruelty).Every rhesus monkey seems to have the potential for Machiavellian behavior. They threaten, have unpredictable bursts of aggression, and use the fear this creates to rule subordinates. They are power conscious. But all primates are power conscious.The primatologist Frans de Waal had a chimp in his Arnhem Zoo colony called Puist who he said was "two faced and mean" and "deceitful or mendacious". She was universally disliked by researchers and compared to a witch.Jane Goodall studied a mother and daughter pair of chimpanzees – Passion and Pom – who systematically cannibalized eight infants over four years. Goodall called Passion a "cold mother".In 1991, Peter Buirski and Robert Plutchik used the Emotions Profile Index, an observational measure, to study Passion. The index includes "deceptiveness, callousness, aggressiveness, absence of emotional ties, and fearlessness" – and it suggested Passion showed deviant behaviour.A study in 1999 took 34 chimpanzees in captivity at a research centre in Georgia as the subjects of its 'Chimpanzee Psychopath Measure'. The team found that there was "evidence for the psychopathy construct in chimpanzees", and concluded that certain features of human psychopathy, such as risk-taking and absence of generosity, were found in great apes. As in humans, male chimps received higher scores than females.Dolphins attack porpoises. Infanticide has been observed in bottlenose dolphins.When male lions take over a pride they kill all previous offspring.Some animals play with their victims—which looks a lot like torture—before killing them.In Brazil, the margay cat mimics the sound of a wounded baby pied tamarin monkey in order to deceive and entice its prey.The female praying mantis will often chomp the head off and eat her mate after sex, sometimes even in the middle of the act.Hyena cubs will kill siblings from the moment they are born.Often we feel that something that is "evil" is against the natural order of things, but perhaps the opposite is true: perhaps it is "bad" behavior that is natural.The existence of a moral good then becomes difficult to explain.What has contributed more to humans being moral, biology or religion?Religion. No contest.Footnotes[1] Christianity in the United States - Wikipedia[2] An Examination of a Reciprocal Relationship Between Religiosity and Different Forms of Delinquency Within a Theoretical Model - BRENT B. BENDA, 1997[3] RELIGION AND CRIME REEXAMINED: THE IMPACT OF RELIGION, SECULAR CONTROLS, AND SOCIAL ECOLOGY ON ADULT CRIMINALITY*[4] No Time For Crime: Study Finds More Religious Communities Have Lower Rates Of Black, White and Latino Violence[5] Visiting a place of worship makes you less likely to shoplift[6] Religion and Crime: A Systematic Review and Assessment of Next Steps[7] Moralistic gods, supernatural punishment and the expansion of human sociality[8] Is Europe proof that intact families don’t really matter?[9] The Marriage-Crime Connection[10] http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/ISR_Then_Comes_Marriage.pdf[11] https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973[12] The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis[13] Jenny Hawkins's answer to Is God's propensity toward bloodshed and violence inherent in mankind?[14] Dominance rank and mating success in male primates[15] Male dominance rank and reproductive success in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii[16] Sex, social status and physiological stress in primates: the importance of social and glucocorticoid dynamics[17] Female reproductive strategies in orangutans, evidence for female choice and counterstrategies to infanticide in a species with frequent sexual coercion[18] Bateman Revisited: The Reproductive Tactics of Female Primates 1

Note: Due to Length, the answer has been split into sections.IntroFrom what I can tell feminists also oppose the underlying notion that women should be the default or primary caregivers to children because that assumption stems from gender roles and thus the patriarchy.Men's rights groups have heavily pushed against the fact that courts are biased against fathers and many aggrieved dads have found their voices on these websites.If anything I see that some, but not all, feminists tend to attribute these types of grievances predominantly to MRAs and because of that I've seen the "courts are biased against dads" quote used as a way to make fun of the men's rights movement more than I see feminists consider it a serious issue.And frankly, I think feminists would consider it a serious problem if the courts were biased the other way and women were losing their children right and left whereas meanwhile, men were the ones predominantly skipping out on their child support payments. But the roles are currently reversed. The courts are biased against fathers and women are skipping out on their child support payments.https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/women-more-likely-fail-pay-child-support-than-men-ben-stevensChild support:It does seem that things are improving within the court system:According to one of the most thorough surveys of child custody outcomes, which looked at Wisconsin between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases, in just that decade, doubled from 15.8 to 30.5. And a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers shows a rapid increase in mothers paying child support.But studies have also found bias among judges.A study conducted in 2004 found that although the tender years doctrine had been abolished some time ago, a majority of Indiana family court judges still supported it and decided cases coming before them consistently with it.A survey of judges in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee found a clear preference among judges for maternal custody in general.Another survey, this one commissioned by the Minnesota Supreme Court, found that a majority (56%) of the state’s judges, both male and female, agreed with the statement, “I believe young children belong with their mother.” Only a few of the judges indicated that they would need more information about the mother before they could answer. Fathers, one judge explained, “must prove their ability to parent while mothers are assumed to be able.”Another judge commented, “I believe that God has given women a psychological makeup that is better tuned to caring for small children.”These self-reported biases were consistent with attorney observationsJudges’ self-reporting of their prejudices against fathers was consistent with practicing attorneys’ impressions of them. 69% of male attorneys had come to the conclusion that judges always or often assume from the outset (i.e., before being presented with any evidence) that children belong with their mothers. 40% of the female attorneys agreed with that assessment. Nearly all attorneys (94% of male attorneys and 84% of female attorneys) said that all judges exhibited prejudice against fathers at least some of the time.What Judges Really Think About Fathers: Responses to court-commissioned judicial bias surveysOverall the bias is real and does exist.There is also some evidence that the bias may not have as large of an effect.In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed -- on their own -- that mom become the custodial parent.In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement.In 11 percent of custody cases, the decision for mom to have custody was made during mediation.In 5 percent of custody cases, the issue was resolved after a custody evaluation.Only 4 percent of custody cases went to trial and of that 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation.The Huffington Post author who uses these stats credits them to Link of the Day which doesn't really seem to be a very legitimate website.This is the page:How Is Child Custody Decided?Now if we look at the sources for this information you'll see:Footnote 1: Child Custody Made Simple, ©1997-2000, Webster Watnik, pages 32-40 — source: "Dividing the Child," Eleanor Maccoby and Robert Mnookin, Harvard University Press, 1992 (study conducted in California). Watnik states that these results are very similar to those in a national study.Footnote 2: Out of Touch, ©1997, Geoffrey L. Greif, page 4 — source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994.These studies were carried out prior to the bias study listed above and possibly when the courts still operated under the tender years doctrine which undoubtedly would influence people's perceptions.Some MRA groups have tackled the issue. For instance, the National Coalition for Men list on their success page:NATIONAL COALITION FOR MEN HELPS PASS PATERNITY FRAUD LEGISLATIONAndNATIONAL COALITION FOR MEN GETS JUDGE DISCIPLINED FOR ANTI-MALE RULINGSNational Coalition for Men SuccessesUnfortunately, it seems that feminists have been a little less supportive. As you can see from the links I posted above, when these individual feminists data to support their stance, they have used it to say that the bias against men simply doesn't exist.Men’s Rights Activists Say the Courts Are Against Them. They’re Wrong.Do Dads REALLY Get Dissed In Divorce Court?AlimonyOf the 400,000 people in the United States receiving post-divorce spousal maintenance, just 3 percent were men, according to Census figures. Yet 40 percent of households are headed by female breadwinners — suggesting that hundreds of thousands of men are eligible for alimony yet don't receive it.Why Do So Few Men Get Alimony?Further biasAnother way in which I believe this bias carries over, while not being related directly to divorce, are the way that male statutory rape victims are treated. In multiple cases, male rape victims have been required by the courts to pay child support to their female rapists, after they become impregnated. This I think better than anything, displays that there is a clear bias in courts. I've seen the argument by feminists many times that this happens because "it's what's best for the child". The only way this could possibly be true is if we were to say that it's better for a child to be raised by a rapist because she's a woman. Go ahead and find me a feminist who will be okay with the roles being reversed, a male rapist raising his child while his underaged female mother is ordered to pay child support to him.Statutory rape victim forced to pay child supportIn this case, the male victim was not a victim of statutory rape but rather forcible rape by his female girlfriend.He says he said no to sex, now says no to child supportThe reason for these laws is because they are rooted in prior precedents. Hermesmann v. Seyer was the case where a female rapist successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue a man for child support even if the conception occurred as a result of a criminal act (read statutory or forcible rape) committed by the woman.Helen Smith wrote about the double standard:Imagine that your 14-year-old daughter engaged in sex with the 20-year-old man down the street. Anger would hardly begin to describe your feelings, but then imagine how you and your daughter would feel if she became pregnant and the man who abused her got custody of the child and your daughter had to pay him child support for the next 18 years.When a state government finds out a 14-year-old girl is a statutory rape victim of a 20-year-old man, the common reaction would be to file criminal charges to put the predator in jail. But for male victims, child support laws turn state governments into the allies of abusers instead of advocates for the victims.Why the double standard when the rape victim is male?Basically we have it written in our legal precedents that male rape victims have to pay child support to their rapists. This seems to fall into the same kind of line of thinking which is that basically men are forced by courts to pay no matter the circumstances, whether it be that their divorced wife is perfectly capable of taking care of herself, that he would like to spend time with his children instead of send a check in the mail or that he doesn't want to have to pay money to the person who raped him.I think it should also be noted that one of the most common reasons that male victims of domestic violence stay with their abuser is because they want to protect their children. They fear that if they divorce, they won't get custody and their children will be left with an abusive mother.Invisible Victims: Men In Abusive Relationships - Paging Dr. NerdLoveIf feminists don't consider this a serious issue, then frankly men should go to the MRAs where they will be taken seriously. And if feminists want to go around condemning MRA conferences as hate speech then do ask them what they've done for these issues lately.

In general doctors that have expressed their opinions regarding private umbilical cord blood banking are against it. Doctors do support cord blood banking to be available to those that are matches and are in need of stem cells.FROM THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICSCord Blood Banking for Potential Future TransplantationSection on Hematology/Oncology and Section on Allergy/Immunologyhttp://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/1/165.full#sec-2RecommendationsCord blood transplantation has been shown to be curative in patients with a variety of serious diseases. Physicians should be familiar with the rationale for cord blood banking and with the types of cord blood–banking programs available. Physicians consulted by prospective parents about cord blood banking can provide the following information:Cord blood donation should be discouraged when cord blood stored in a bank is to be directed for later personal or family use, because most conditions that might be helped by cord blood stem cells already exist in the infant’s cord blood (ie, premalignant changes in stem cells). Physicians should be aware of the unsubstantiated claims of private cord blood banks made to future parents that promise to insure infants or family members against serious illnesses in the future by use of the stem cells contained in cord blood. Although not standard of care, directed cord blood banking should be encouraged when there is knowledge of a full sibling in the family with a medical condition (malignant or genetic) that could potentially benefit from cord blood transplantation.Cord blood donation should be encouraged when the cord blood is stored in a bank for public use. Parents should recognize that genetic (eg, chromosomal abnormalities) and infectious disease testing is performed on the cord blood and that if abnormalities are identified, they will be notified. Parents should also be informed that the cord blood banked in a public program may not be accessible for future private use.Because there are no scientific data at the present time to support autologous cord blood banking and given the difficulty of making an accurate estimate of the need for autologous transplantation and the ready availability of allogeneic transplantation, private storage of cord blood as “biological insurance” should be discouraged. Cord blood banks should comply with national accreditation standards developed by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Trade Commission, and similar state agencies. At a minimum, physicians involved in procurement of cord blood should be aware of cord blood collection, processing, and storage proceduresFrom Science Daily: "Few Physicians Support Private Banking Of Umbilical Cord Blood"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090306142532.htm"A survey of physicians has found broad support for the position that parents should not bank their newborns' umbilical cord blood in a private blood bank unless another member of the family is at risk for a blood disease that will require a stem cell transplant.The results of the survey are reported by researchers at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and their colleagues in the March issue of the journalPediatrics. Their findings are in general accord with the recommendations of medical organizations that have previously weighed in on the issue."Physicians who perform hematopoietic cell transplants in children are well positioned to judge the advisability of private cord blood banking, but their views had never been systematically sought and collected," says the study's senior author, Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, of Dana-Farber. "We found that these physicians have performed relatively few transplants involving privately banked cord blood, and that their position on such banking is generally in line with that of larger medical organizations."For the current study, surveys were sent to 152 pediatric hematopoietic cell transplant physicians in the United States and Canada, 93 of whom responded. Questions addressed the number of transplants physicians had performed using privately banked cord blood, their willingness to use such blood in specific situations, and their recommendations to parents regarding private cord blood banking.The respondents reported that of the thousands of stem cell transplants they had performed, only 50 involved privately banked cord blood. Forty one of those cases were "allogeneic" transplants, in which blood from one individual was used to treat another member of the family. And in 36 of those cases, families already knew of a member who was a candidate for a transplant prior to banking the cord blood. The researchers identified only four or five cases in which cord blood that had been privately banked "just in case" it would someday be needed was actually used to treat a sibling of the donor. They also identified only nine cases in which children whose cord blood had been banked subsequently underwent transplants using their own stem cells (known as autologous transplantation), despite the fact that this is the primary use for which private cord blood banks market their services.Few of the respondents said they would choose a patient's own cord blood over other alternatives as a source of stem cells for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. By contrast, more than half said they would use an individual's own cord blood to treat high-risk neuroblastoma, or to treat severe aplastic anemia in the absence of an available sibling donor.In addition, few would recommend banking of cord blood in families without a member known to have, or be at risk for, a disease that can be treated by transplantation."In the absence of a family member known to be a candidate for stem cell transplantation, the chances that privately banked cord blood will be used are quite small," Joffe says. "Families need to balance the high cost of banking such blood against the remote odds of its ever being needed. Pediatricians, family physicians, obstetricians, nurse midwives, and other professionals who work with families should educate parents about the medical community's consensus view on this issue."The lead author of the study is Ian Thornley, MD, of North Shore Medical Center in Salem, Mass. Co-authors are Mary Eapen, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Lillian Sung, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto; Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle; and Stella Davies, MD, PhD of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.From the Chicago Tribune "Private Cord Blood Banking: Doctors Cast Doubts on Its Value to Parents."http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-06-19/news/0906190017_1_cord-blood-cord-blood-registry-stem"I didn't consider doing it for my kids," said Dr. Steven Joffe, a pediatric stem cell transplant physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. "And that was after I had begun to work in this field."Joffe surveyed 93 fellow pediatric stem cell transplant doctors five years ago and found most agreed with him. Joffe published his results in March in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. That group advises doctors to "discourage" parents from privately banking cord blood, unless there is an ill sibling who might need the cells.Most private cord-blood banks acknowledge current uses for the cells are limited, though they cite cases of families that were grateful to be able to use banked cord blood to help a relative.But "you don't do it for any one disease," said David Zitlow, spokesman for one of the largest and oldest cord-blood banks in the world, Cord Blood Registry. It has banked 285,000 units of cord blood."From Diane Sawyer's report on ABC "Private Umbilical Cord Blood Banking: Smart Parenting or Waste of Money?"http://abcnews.go.com/WN/private-umbilical-cord-blood-banking-parents-spend-big/story?id=10549979#.TwbxStS5ySo"The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends public banking over private, favoring private banking only when there is already an affected family member or a disease in the family that would benefit from a transplant. Many consumer cord blood banking organizations do not support one type of banking over another but recommend that parents be informed of the pros and cons of the various options."From Wired Science "Inside the Strange Science of Cord Blood Banking"http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/cord-blood-banking/“If you have the money, and you want to bank your child’s own cord blood, you’re essentially investing in one of two things,” said Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg, director of the Duke Pediatric Bone Marrow and Stem Cell Transplant Program. “One, the possibility that another child in your family will need that cord blood, and that it matches. Or two, that somewhere in the future there will be new developments and new uses for your child’s cord blood — say in regenerative medicine or cell therapy. But to date, none of those exist.”