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”.

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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

  • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    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.

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Thank god no European family of significance has ever done anything like this.

      spoiler

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        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.

        Brits have been doing this for literal hundreds to thousands of years.

        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?

        • Jarix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I think there is also a small town in Eastern USA that currently has an issue with everyone being too closely related

  • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    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.

  • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

  • Railcar8095@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    15 hours ago

    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

    • Atlas_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      31 minutes ago

      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.

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      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”

  • Chozo@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    22 hours ago

    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.

    • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yeah, but what can the NHS do with that?

      They just treat folk. People will make those choices regardless.

      • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        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.