In reply: Roberts asserts that we are biased, paternalistic and driven by an ideological objection to private umbilical cord blood (UCB) storage. While this is impressive rhetoric, it bears little resemblance to the points made in our article.1
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1 Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
- 2 Haematology Department, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW.
- 3 Centre for Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders, Sydney Children’s Hospital, Sydney, NSW.
Correspondence: gsamuel@med.usyd.edu.au
- 1. Samuel GN, Kerridge IH, O’Brien TA. Umbilical cord blood banking: public good or private benefit? Med J Aust 2008; 188: 533-535. <MJA full text>
- 2. Sugarman J, Kaalund V, Kodish E, et al. Ethical issues in umbilical cord blood banking. Working Group on Ethical Issues in Umbilical Cord Blood Banking. JAMA 1997; 278: 938-943.
- 3. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Umbilical cord blood banking. Scientific Advisory Committee opinion paper 2. London: RCOG, 2006. http://www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=545 (accessed Jul 2008).
- 4. Samuel GN, Kerridge IH, Vowels M, et al. Ethnicity, equity and public benefit: a critical evaluation of public umbilical cord blood banking in Australia. Bone Marrow Transplant 2007; 40: 729-734.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.