NHS defends cousin marriages because ‘only 15 percent lead to birth defects’
Midwives have been told about the benefits of “close relative marriage” in training documents that minimise the risks to couples’ children.
The documents claim “85 to 90 per cent of cousin couples do not have affected children” and warn staff that “close relative marriage is often stigmatised in England”, adding claims that “the associated genetic risks have been exaggerated”.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/nhs-defends-cousin-marriages-because-141856751.htmlOpen linkView original on discuss.online444
Comments127
I wonder where this 15% figure comes from. All the research I can find estimates the probability for these disorders at around 2-4% for first degree cousins. This is about the same as becoming a mother at 40 with a non-related man.
The article only talks about some NHS training documents and is very opinionated in style. Smells like a snappy headline about a controversial topic was more important than proper research.
Plus in the absence of any power dynamic* why shouldn't absolutely anyone be allowed to choose to be in a relationship with literally anyone else? Especially as people are increasingly choosing to not reproduce.
* If this is even possible
Usually the argument goes into the ethics of bearing children in a way that, knowingly, creates a significantly and markedly higher risk for every kind of disorder reducing the child's QOL. I don't usually find this argument anywhere near airtight, since there's a plethora of other ways to do that that aren't banned AND this veers into eugenics territory. But that's the argument I've seen, at least.
Am I the only one that thinks 15% is way too high of a chance to be rolling the dice like that? I've played enough XCOM to know that even a 99% success rate will still bite you in the ass.
That's because like NHS in this case, X-COM *lies *.
It lies in your favor, though. On difficulties below the highest, the modern games have hidden modifiers that affect the hit chance that you can't see, but all of them are cheating for you. IIRC your hit chance secretly increases when you have missed shots recently, when you have dead soldiers, when you are outnumbered, and maybe some other things.
Now tell them vaccinees have less than 15% chance of causing autism.
While it's true that the chance is less than 15% you missed about 10^-5 0's there.
Yeah, but what can the NHS do with that?
They just treat folk. People will make those choices regardless.
Excuse me! Loads of Western European countries allow full incest (e.g. Belgium, France, Spain, etc.) so let's not pick on us Brits for allowing cousins to fuck.
I'm partially agreeing with you, but just because other countries say it's OK, it doesn't mean that we should.
Haven't looked at the data, but still, 15% risk is high. From a social a health care perspective, this is horrible for those children too.
On the other hand, you can have marriage without children and children without marriage.
Unless you start punishing them for having children, it's naive to ban marriage.
not making illegal and support from the national health service are vastly different things. 15% is a disastrous rate for public health.
But it's not a 15% risk. Unrelated couples have a 3% chance of having a child with a birth defect while cousins have a 5% chance of having a child with a birth defect.
Isn't the problem being that the probability increases with each subsequent generations? That's why having a child with a cousin should be discouraged, to prevent the accumulation of bad recessive genes.
If you have one person with recessive genes and one person with dominant genes, then the baby will have the dominant gene. So if the grandparents were cousins both with recessive genes it wouldn't matter, as far as I know.
The thing is, with subsequent incestual generations, the likelihood of the recessive gene manifesting increases a lot. So, the problem is not a single generation of incest, it's the normalisation of incest that might lead to multiple generations doing it.
Oh I see what you're saying. I did some reading earlier that said that in a lot of places 20% - 40% of all marriages are to first cousins.
Yeah, plenty of places where first cousin marriages are still not uncommon.
theres also dominant alleles that are the disease state, it also gets complicated when theres partial penetrance since its only half an half.
The stats I saw show a 2.55% risk across all UK births. So a bit under 3%.
@eager_eagle It would be, if that figure was correct. Which I'm not finding support for, but I am finding what seems to be COUNTER-support:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin/_marriage#Genetics
'In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0 percentage points above the average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40.'
US yanks in red states too.
"Brits are like US Southerners" is, arguably, a worse insult then calling them incestuous.
For who? The Brits or the southerners? Lol
Whichever has more teeth
It's a fun stereotype, but you may find this map interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States
Fun fact: Most of the places it's legal in are blue. Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina are the only red states it's legal in, out of 17 total states. If we include states where it's conditionally legal (usually based on age/fertility) it's Utah out of 7 states.
It's more about immigrants
Define "full incest". Pretty sure siblings are not allowed
Pretty sure they are. Incestuous relationships between consenting adults (with the age varying by location) are permitted, including in the Netherlands, France, Slovenia, and Spain. Why not check before making such a statement?
Not only wrong, but also childish about it. First, this topic is about marriage. They are not taking about letting them be in a relationship, but marriage.
And marriage between siblings is not allowed in several countries you mentioned, which you would know if you checked instead of being "pretty sure".
Not go be a wrong ass somewhere else.
Oh do fuck off, there's a good chap.
Devils advocate: I have a genetic defect that has 50% chance of being passed to my children. It causes bone tumors that range from stetic to life changing.
We only managed to ensure it wasn't with expensive DNA tests pre - implantation.
Should I be barred from marriage if I can't pay for that?
It's not a hypothetical
Not sure what marriage has to do with it in either case tbh. The cousinfuckers can have babies without getting married and so can you lol
But I do understand your point. It's an ethical dilemma and not a simple one. I mean on a policy level. I imagine on a personal level it's easier to say "the risk is too great, I won't do it" as opposed to policymakers saying "the risk is too great, you shouldn't be allowed to have children"
I'm just following that logic, I made a similar comment about marriage =! Children
https://lemmy.world/comment/21642724
For me this is a good thing (remove the restriction). I would love the message to be more of support rather then "well, some will have defects" though
Oh I didn't disagree with you. I'm just wondering why tf they're talking about marriage anyway. In this day and age, I think most babies are born out of wedlock.
There's a law that prevents the marriage from back when marriage==children.
It's a stupid law, but an even more stupid reason to change it.
Around 40% in the US.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/out-of-wedlock-births-by-country
That's already a lot but apparently in the UK which the article is about it is now over 50%
There are far fewer practising Christians in the UK. Also there's no tax incentive favouring marriage, everyone files separately.
Do you think it's (morally) right for you to have kids that you know would have a 50% chance to have bone tumors?
Sex bans are generally not workable. A marriage ban for you would be restrictive. This is very different for cousins, because there's plenty of non-cousin alternatives for everyone.
The worse question is, is it more morally rightful for me to have children when I can afford the test that ensured he wasn't affected versus those who can't afford it? Does wealth and access make me rightful?
I don't think marriage bans are OK in general. Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Hell, let's bring polynomy forward too (but I'm not sure how consent would work there). As a matter of fact, I'm not even married so restriction or not didn't matter
Lots of things lead to increased risk of birth defects, like having children after the age of 30. I thought it was pretty well known that the risks associated with inbreeding drops off pretty sharply at the cousin level? At that point I think the appropriate reaction is social stigma, but not legal ramifications.
It also compounds over generations; if you're the child of first cousins, you really should seek someone who it would take genealogy research to find a common ancestor with. If you're not, it's still a serious risk to have kids with anyone too closely related, but level ramifications seem really harsh, especially thinking of situations like adoption where someone could end up there accidentally. And to your point, it isn't the only way to end up with that kind of risk profile.
Good thing that it's possible for a couple to take a test that gives a good measure of their degree of consanguinity.
This is a particular risk not only in countries with first-cousin marriage, but in those with small founder populations. For example, Iceland, where the government provides this measure to any couple who asks, so that they can make an informed decision about the risk before reproducing.
And ethno-nationalists can choke on this fact: the best strategy to reduce the risk of genetic defects is out-marriage. The less closely genetically similar two partners are, the lower the odds of autosomal recessive disorders afflicting their offspring. So I did the rational thing, and married someone whose ancestors came from a different part of the world than mine.
We are talking of a huge difference between risks to a child by parents over 30 compared to a clear 15% risk with cousins having children. The actual risks are higher where there are recent (parent and grandparents) who were also more closely related.
It's not a clear 15% risk. The actual risk to an individual child is in the 4-5% range, compared to 2.55% for the population as a whole.
Isn't that likely compounded if children of first cousins end up reproducing with children from first cousins, and so on? As a one-off, those figures might be the case, but could well increase if the practice is endemic.
Right wing newspaper The Telegraph supporting right-wing MPs campaign to ban cousin marriage by cherry picking health service docs that aren't there to promote but giving guidance to health professionals on how to treat patients and have zero impact on whether people choose to marry their cousins or procreate with them.
The prevalence is higher in UK Pakistani communities like Bradford. Having a right wing politician cherry pick info they dislike about minorities to start a crusade against minorities is as old as time.
I didn't think reactionary right wing politics would get so much traction on Lemmy of all places. Critically assess your sources, who is publishing, who is saying, and why.
Next week. Right wing MP pushes to ban the burka as it has x% impact on pedestrian safety at road crossings. When racists cannot directly discriminate, they don't stop, they just go for indirect strategies.
You need to parse the sentence a bit. "85 to 90% of cousin couples do not have affected children" does not mean that the odds of one child being born with a hereditary genetic defect is 15%. It means that, for the average family size of a first-cousin couple, the odds are 10-15% that at least one of the kids is affected.
So, let's conservatively say the average family size among those who marry first cousins is 3. The odds of at least one in those three kids having a genetic defect are stated to be 15%. So that means the odds of any individual kid whose parents are first cousins having a genetic defect are a bit under 5% (the odds of a given event happening at least once in three independent trials).
The odds will be substantially lower if that 15% figure were based on a larger family size than 3.
As a baseline, tn the UK, the odds in the overall UK population of a genetic defect occurring are around 2.55%.
So the risk is roughly double the baseline for any individual child. But the way the numbers are presented makes it seem misleadingly high and has led to predictable screeching from the usual quarters. There is also no measure of severity. For example, despite my parents being unrelated, I have a genetic defect that causes high cholesterol levels in my blood. However, it's cheaply treatable (woo hoo, statins!) so its impact on pubilc health is next to nil.
I'd favour banning marriages where the partners have first-cousin and closer degrees of consanguinity, but I also see the point of not catastrophising the actual impact.
Probability is 5.27%for each kid
You're right, I shouldn't try doing these calculations in my head.
But qualitatively, same conclusion: cousin marriage roughly doubles the risk of hereditary disease for each kid, from 2.55% (the NHS publishes stats on it) to 5.27%.
They have to justify the inbreeding of the monarchy somehow.
Nice spin. They do not list benefits but advocate that the risk have been exaggerated.
Not defending cousin incest, but it sounds like the NHS is at least backing up its viewpoint with evidence.
Now as to unstigmatising cousin marriages, that's a no from me. There are 60 million other people in the UK, there's gotta be at least one that's right for you that's not also your cousin.
P.s. Trump should really have left the US out of this conversation given how infamous some of the Southern States are for this sort of "matrimony"
Only?
Yeah no shit. 15% is fucking huge
I think this might be relevant
Wow 10 of them are almost half (or more). That surprises me. I knew it happens in arranged marriages, but I didn't think it was this frequent.
For convenience, here's the link that's written in the footer on the picture:
https://brilliantmaps.com/consanguineous-marriage/
And the source link from there:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/inbreeding-by-country
What is the Roll Tide equivalent in Pakistan?
They must make the best tory voters?
Actually the opposite since they're mostly immigrants and those vote largely Labour
Badoom chicka wow wow.
"I can count 6 reasons on my left hand why we should allow this...."
6 fibers used to be fairly common, until they started getting lynched and burned at the stake due to religiously zealotism. Or so I read one time sheet watching the princess Bride
If we ever get Medicare for All, I hope our national insurance agency doesn't put out a paper extolling the virtues of fucking and impregnanting your cousins.
Er, we do. It’s called the NHS.
It looks as though the goal was to encourage midwives not to stigmatise people for marrying their first cousins. That seems a good policy when they're delivering healthcare services. But the way the numbers were presented made things appear worse than they are.
I indulge in some risky behaviors (martial arts, skiing, cycling). I don't want lectures about the risks of those, either. If I break a bone, I want it treated, and if the NHS takes a view on the activity that caused it, I'll want to hear it later from my GP, and definitely not at the time I'm seeking treatment.
Did you read the article?
If that's not extolling the virtues of impregnanting your cousins, I don't know what it is.
This is what happens when people are afraid to criticize...
“It’s cultural”
Are we trying to explain the Royal family again........
mcpoyle families
keep it in the family. mcpoyle over a 1000years in the same bloodline.
Les cousins dangereux
Now I want to watch Cruel Intentions.
Roll tide!
Of those 15% I bet 100% vote for Deform UK.
It's a big thing in the Pakistani and British-Pakistani communities. The biggest spot in all of Europe for incest is in Bradford, after all.
I highly doubt those demographics vote Reform. Reform voters hate these people.
I don't think marriage is the problem. It's having children
“85 to 90 per cent of cousin couples do not have affected children”
So imagine 10 couples: 1 couple has an affected child, the other 9 couples do not have any children. In this case, 90 percent of couples do not have affected children but 100 percent of children are affected. I wonder why they presented the statistics using that particular, odd means of phrasing.
On the scale of things, I think this rate's a "who the fuck cares?".
I don't really care if cousins get married. I don't really care if they have kids together. I do care if they have birth defects and we should do things medically responsible to reduce or eliminate birth defects, but the whole cousin thing doesn't really bother me as long as there's no external pressure (like British royalty or stereotypical Southern Hicks).
Who is really that bent out of shape on this and why should we care?
As you stated, the worst thing of such marriage is having kids with health problems that can accumulate very fast with each new generation(silent mutations that get only worse and someday pop out with loud bang). This is mostly the only thing that stops such relationships.
I think it's just another dog whistle tbh, like caring about animal welfare when it's Halal, or worrying about parking when a HMO is opened.
Cousin marriage is a brown person activity, so suddenly pearls are clutched.
An unfortunate aspect of Pakistani culture that has carried over to the UK.
Families would marry within the family to keep their wealth within the family.
Unfortunately after successive generations, this can cause serious problems.
Thank god no European family of significance has ever done anything like this.
::: spoiler spoiler
:::
Leaving out the chin-cultivators, most of southern Europe was also like that until relatively recently.
Obviously they have, it's just very few and far between.
It's a bit silly to bring up royal families and pretend their lifestyles are similar to that of the common man.
Look at this map and tell me the issue is European culture.
404 humor not found
No it isn't? I've tried again and just like before, it loads a page.
Woosh?
@TheGrandNagus 0% is definitely wrong for ANY place, but I get that they mean 'too low to measure/count' or something like that. But I still suspect that's just ignoring reality, out of convenience. (No data, no evidence. But they know better.) After that, you need to define terms, which I'm not seeing here. You need to define a lot more, too, such as class/caste distinctions, which I'd bet are highly relevant in many or most cases.
This looks like a cheap way to call some places backwards.
It reads like a dogwhistle for xenophobia. I deleted my original comment because I had second thoughts that OP was referring strictly the article and I misunderstood. I'm starting to think my original thought wasn't too far off, though.
@SphereofWreckening It strikes me as an example of the saying, "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Without knowing the source data and methodology, or even definitions of terms and concepts, we're taking this source at their unsupported word only, which is nowhere near adequate to draw any conclusions from, or even vague impressions. There's a great deal of semi-professional propaganda in the world meant to drive various bigoted agendas, and we all need to be wary about that.
How on earth is it dogwhistle?
Different cultures have different cultural norms. In Pakistan, it's extremely normal to marry within the family.
This is a problem with Pakistani culture in Britain when it comes to marrying family members.
There's a reason why the hotspot of birth defects for all of Europe is in Bradford, an area of high Pakistani immigration where over 80% of married adult Pakistanis are married to cousins. That is an insane stat.
No, some German-descended royals did it for a few hundred. And they are absolutely not representative of the average Briton. Most normal people aren't continually marrying from the same royal families of other allied nations, like royals used to.
Do you think maps like this are mere coincidence?
I think there is also a small town in Eastern USA that currently has an issue with everyone being too closely related
British teeth explained.
Brits actually have among the healthiest teeth in the world. A while ago they were joint first with Germany, but now they're only joint 7th with Sweden, after the likes of Denmark, Finland, and others upped their game.
The cousin fucking is very much a Pakistani immigrant problem, so not really related to the unfounded American meme about British dental care.
I wonder if they're also weighing the societal costs of having potentially serious birth defects in 10-15% of the population?
I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins!
What is the rate among the control group?
I think incest is icky and we should "aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population"
/s
I think these sorts of conversations are too nuanced for any politician to have, like the death penalty. They'd just use it to target people the right doesn't like.
Cousin marriage is a heavily exaggerated statistic. Unless it happens many generations in a row the genetic variation does not nearly reach anything representing sibling marriage.
Ban cousin marriage.
This is maybe an unpopular opinion but I remain on team “stay the fuck out of other people’s business.” This fits soundly in the “other people’s business” category.
ITT: Blatant ableism disguised as concerns.
Should you be allowed to have children if you are a known carrier of some bad but not inmediatly deadly risk gene like fragile x, chorea huntington, mucoviszidosis, diabetes 1 (let's ignore the worsening of fragile x and chorea huntingtion across generations for a moment)? Should you be allowed to have children if you have trisomie 21, or some other mental disability? If you say no i think you are ableist and can't comprehend that people with special needs are still people that can be happy and can have desires. If you say yes why can't two cousins have a child? What if they have two forms of birth control and just want to fuck? What if they are the same sex? I my experience most people who are against two cousins having sex do not give a flying fuck about some theoretical chile but just think it's icky. Which is a fair feeling you are allowed to have but should not be basis for a law.
Having children with disabilities via voluntary incest is a choice. Same with having kids with a terrible genetic disease. It's also questionable how good a parent, if not person, you are for willingly wanting to bring in someone who will suffer into the world. Especially when there's adoption available. If you can use technology to prevent a literal disease, that's different.
People who get kidney failure or lost an arm definetly didn't make that damn choice.
If anything is ableist it's your opinion; people with disease or injury don't want to have it, or made the choice to have it - let alone have they're loved ones get the same thing. It's about not judging the person's potential abilities in specific areas or mistreating them despite the disease.
But advocating for the spread of the disease is fucked up. Your logic is no different than advocating a blind parent should have the right to blind their child intentionally.
The issue I have with your argument is you can use the exact same argument for sibling incest. If two cousins can have a child, and we're dismissing the birth defect risk argument, then why can't a brother and sister have a child? What if they just want to fuck? What if the entire family is into the aristocrats style gang bang?
Your argument doesn't draw a line between cousin incest and parent-child or sibling incest. If one is okay then the other should also be okay and I don't know about you but I'm definitely not okay with the latter. I'm not saying you're in the wrong but I do disagree with the argument you made for it.
Parent-child incest has the power dynamic issue. It's basically impossible to consent in that relationship. As to siblings, I'd argue that the logical conclusion is that it is probably okay, unless there's a limit to how much birth defect risk is allowable, which as noted above, comes with other issues.
Siblings definitely have power dynamics that make consent very hazardous. I'd argue first cousins also have such dynamics. Perhaps to a lesser degree, but there's no real benefit from having cousins marry and there is an increased risk of birth defects, so better to disallow it.
Should disabled people be blanket banned from having sex or children? No obviously not. Not really workable anyways and quite morally hazardous to put into law, as you point out.
Should people with disabilities ought to (in a moral sense) have children that are at high risk of sharing their disability? Also no. To be frank, there's a reason we call it disability. Even though they can have good, rich, valuable lives, they much more often don't.
This is definitely a question of degrees. Society and medical support can change this line. Like where diabetes used to be a death sentence now it's serious but treatable. So less problematic to pass on diabetes today vs 200y ago, but why would you want to?
Finally let's get to cousins. Beyond the additional risk that they have children with health problems, there's a question of consent. Even between cousins (like siblings) there's often a power dynamic that makes consent hazardous. So IMO, obviously immoral. Making this illegal is not very restrictive (it affects you banging like 0-100 specific people out of literally billions) and codifies what was a taboo anyways (which is like, a pretty significant amount of law). 24 US states agree with me.
What law makes it illegal?
This. I haven't seen an argument about incest that doesn't immediately devolve into eugenics, or talking about power imbalances that aren't present with adult cousins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
Is it eugenics now to say people should avoid conceiving children that are likely to have birth defects?
I don't know, but do you also think it should be illegal to have a child if you're over 40?
Do you also think that it should be illegal for people with heritable disabilities to have children?
Because your argument isn't anti-cousin-marriage, it's anti-birth-defects, and there are a whole lot more sources of them than incest, and ones that are way more common.
Also, yes, preventing people from having children who would have birth defects dates back to the original eugenics movement, it is literally a core belief of the eugenics movement.
24 US states ban cousin marriages. No states ban people over 40 from having children. You want to equate the two but there is a line between that that you can draw, as evidenced by half of the USA doing so.
I've expanded on my views elsewhere in thread.
25 US stated by my count, but also I let my ethics develop separately from the law. There's been a lot of very questionable things in the law in the past, and as such it's not exactly a trustable guide for ethics imo.
That's not the point you presented here, though. The point you presented here was birth defects.
The point you brought up there I still object to, though. While there can be power dynamics between cousins, it's fairly rare for those to continue into adulthood, and I have long taken the stance "I don't believe the state should have a say in what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home."
The line that's been drawn is people allowing their disgust to inform policy at best. If it were based in anything else the policies would be different.
So that's why it's a marriage ban?
Why did you bring birth defects up if marriage is the concern? You don't get birth defects from a wedding.
Also in basically every state where it's illegal to marry your cousin it's illegal to have sex with them, too.
(When I say basically I mean I'm too tired to check half of the US's laws on this, and the source I'm using says sexual contact is generally not permitted)
Solid observational skills! They have, however, failed you. Just because someone is pointing out that certain arguments don't actually hold water doesn't mean they engage in the activities the arguments are against.
I just don't care if two cousins wanna fuck because the arguments against it are things that I'm actively opposed to, or don't apply to the situation.
You're not as persuasive as you think you are...and you're not fooling anyone.
What, persuasive about not wanting to fuck my cousin? I don't particularly care if anyone thinks I do. If I did, I wouldn't be in a thread about fucking your cousin saying I think it's fine to fuck your cousin. I know that people will make assumptions about my sex life based on my position alone.
If you mean about the arguments against it being eugenics, I care more about that point, because they are, and eugenics is bad.
.....jfc dude
Source
I... Don't even actually see the point here? I have access to the internet, and know how to use a search engine? You can literally look that up on Wikipedia, are you trying to imply that because I looked at a Wikipedia article for this post that I want to fuck my cousin?
What a strange outlook on obtaining knowledge. If just knowing what states it's legal in, something that takes about 30 seconds to find, makes you a cousin-fucker, wouldn't that make you one too? Or is it just the first person in the thread doing it?