Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook


 


 

'Badge of Honour' or Protective Shield? Are the HTA the new arbiters of the cord blood industry?

06 May 2008

By Dr Karen Devine

Kent Law School, University of Kent

Appeared in BioNews 456
In the 21st Century, the collection and use of stem cells from umbilical cord blood (UCB) is anything but a new phenomenon. Since the first successful UCB transplant in 1988, the use of UCB for transplantation purposes has been used in over 6,000 treatments worldwide and has proved to be a viable treatment option where suitable supplies of bone marrow fail to exist. Current human applications have included the treatment of blood cancers and genetic blood disorders and research has shown that UCB might in the long term play a significant role in cell therapy and regenerative medicine.

UCB can be procured at the moment of birth and stored for either private use or donated to a public bank. In the UK, NHS Trust midwives typically carry out the collection process for those wishing to store privately as a gesture of good will at the request of the pregnant woman. However, things are about to change. The Human Tissue Authority (HTA) have announced this week that as of 5 July 2008, all facilities that collect UCB will need to apply for a licence to do so - a certification the HTA's Chief Executive colloquially declares 'a badge of honour'. To achieve such an accolade, they will need to demonstrate that fully trained specialist staff collect the cells on premises that meet the necessary standards and that best practice ensures the third stage of labour will not be jeopardised. Furthermore, facilitators will need to show that any cells collected for future use can be traced for identification and monitoring purposes.

So what has been the driving force behind the need for reforms in the collection of such a potentially valuable resource and why is it such an honour for a facilitating premise to be deemed worthy to collect? Essentially, the HTA have implemented the new regulations in response to the legal requirements of the European Tissue and Cells Directive, which were transposed into UK law in July 2007. However, the regulations appear to resonate with an underlying purpose. The HTA raises fears that unqualified collectors, such as fathers, have become involved in the collection process, a fear that may not be unfounded.

In spite of the fact that only a handful of NHS Trusts in the UK allow midwives to facilitate the collection process, many have policies that allow third parties to collect on their premises on the expectant woman's behalf. This poses a number of concerns including the third party's lack of expertise in collection techniques and methods and unfamiliarity with safety and hygiene procedures within a clinical setting. These concerns are particularly worrying given that in order for the collected cells to be of any viable future use, they must be of sufficient quality and quantity.

Although there has been a disparity of opinion amongst experts in the field as to which collection method should be adopted, research carried out by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) between January 1993 and 2003 concluded that those who receive specialist training produce acceptable results. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), who report that bacterial contamination rates fall when trained staff perform collection, support this view. Clearly, the HTA's requirement for only qualified personnel to undertake the procedure ensures the best possible return for those willing to pay up to £1500 for a private storage option and sufficient protection for that financial investment.

But what sort of protection is afforded the health care professional willing to help patients collect their UCB? Essentially, they face the possibility of being held personally liable should they collect insufficient cells, the samples become contaminated or mislabelled, their attention is diverted from essential procedures necessary in the third stage of labour in favour of collection or experience personal injury hazards associated with the use of multiple collection needles. Furthermore, midwives may not be familiar with the different types of collection kits that each individual commercial company manufacture and sell to their clients. Given that they voluntarily collect the cells in a selfless act of altruism in the full knowledge that the NHS Litigation Authority will not indemnify them if they choose to do so, these facilitators who vocationally act within an era of health care choice deserve to be protected from potential legal liability, as do the NHS Trusts that employ them. This is particularly relevant given that the commercial sector predominantly relies on their good will but does not bear any of the legal responsibilities. Furthermore, it is the commercial sector that reaps the financial reward for their efforts. It is for these reasons, together with competing evidence associated with the real potential for the future use of privately stored cells, that the RCOG and The Royal College of Midwives have advised NHS Trusts to refrain from allowing its personnel to collect UCB.

It would therefore appear that the aims of the new HTA regulations are not only to ensure a financial safeguard for potential UCB clients in that that the most sufficient cells are secured on their behalf, but also the legal protection of those who altruistically put themselves in a position to make the procurement of UCB a reality. Notwithstanding the fact that the NHS and its staff remain open to potential negligence actions, to shield those who put themselves on the line for another's benefit is surely something worthy of legal protection. What may be compromised, however, is the lack of choice for those in a position to engage in an opportunity to collect and store what they deem to be a service option worthy of financial commitment. The 'badge of honour' may offer protection, but it may also act as a bar to potential choice.

SOURCES & REFERENCES

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

28 September 2009 - by MacKenna Roberts 
Banking a newborn's umbilical cord blood through a private company so that stem cells may be derived and stored for that child's or sibling's future medical uses is not financially worthwhile, according to a study performed at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). It found that the chances of privately stored umbilical cord blood being therapeutic in the next twenty years are so remote that it does not justify the expense. The researchers calculated that it costs ap...
15 June 2009 - by Heidi Colleran 
Ireland is being 'left way behind' in providing future sources of stem cells harvested from the umbilical cord blood of newborns, because of insurance-related policies preventing their collection. Professor Colin McGuckin, president of Novus Sanguis, an international research consortium on cord blood and stem cell research has called on Irish parents to sue the Irish Health Service Executive (HSE) when denied the service....
14 April 2009 - by Ben Jones 
Two studies co-ordinated by researchers at the University of Nottingham have warned that the development of stem cell therapies is coming under threat as a result of the recession. The research, published by the University's Institute of Science and Society, also warns that without urgent changes in...
06 April 2009 - by Sarah Pritchard 
Some UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals are banning the collection of umbilical cord blood at birth unless it goes into a public blood bank rather than being stored for future use by the individual. King's College hospital in London and Watford General hospital in Hertfordshire have...
15 September 2008 - by Dr Karen Devine 
The UK's Antony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust this week launched a new initiative - the Antony Nolan Cord Blood Bank and a combined stem cell research centre at Nottingham Trent University. Mothers who deliver babies at the Kings College Hospital, London, are being recruited to donate the stem...

20 October 2006 - by Dr Karen Devine 
Once again, umbilical cord blood (UCB) stem cell collection and storage has been in the headlines of the popular press. UCB can be collected at birth and stored for the future use of the donor, its siblings or donated for public use. There are two main types of banking - public...
15 June 2006 - by Dr Karen Devine 
This week saw the long awaited report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which stated its latest position on the public and private banking of umbilical cord blood stem cells. Essentially, their stance remains unchanged from the one taken in their previous opinion paper published in 2001...

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to or  to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions


- click here to enquire about using this story.

Published by the Progress Educational Trust

CROSSING FRONTIERS

Public Conference
London
8 December 2017

Speakers include

Professor Azim Surani

Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge

Sally Cheshire

Professor Guido Pennings

Katherine Littler

Professor Allan Pacey

Dr Sue Avery

Professor Richard Anderson

Dr Elizabeth Garner

Dr Andy Greenfield

Dr Anna Smajdor

Dr Henry Malter

Vivienne Parry

Dr Helen O'Neill

Dr César Palacios-González

Philippa Taylor

Fiona Fox

Sarah Norcross

Sandy Starr


BOOK HERE

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation