‘Cousin marriage’ doubles gene risk for babies: Study

[Dubious]

PARIS: First cousins who marry run twice the risk of having a child with genetic abnormalities, according to the findings of a study in the English city of Bradford, published Friday in The Lancet.
The city, which has a high proportion of South Asian immigrants and their descendants among its population, served as a microcosm for examining the risk of blood relative couplings.
About 37 per cent of marriages among people of Pakistani origin in the study involved first cousins, compared to less than one per cent of “British unions”, said the researchers.
University of Leeds investigator Eamonn Sheridan led a team that pored over data from the “Born in Bradford” study, which tracks the health of 13,500 babies born at the city’s main hospital between 2007 and 2011.
Out of 11,396 babies for whom family details were known, 18 per cent were the offspring of first-cousin unions, mainly among people of Pakistani heritage.
A total of 386 babies – three per cent – were born with anomalies ranging from problems in the nervous, respiratory and digestive systems, to urinary and genital defects and cleft palates.
This Bradford rate was nearly twice the national average, said the study.
Other factors blamed for genetic flaws, such as alcohol consumption, smoking and social deprivation, can be ruled out, it said.
“Thirty-one per cent of all anomalies in children of Pakistani origin could be attributed to consanguinity” or marriage between first cousins, said the study.
The authors say theirs was the first study to delve into the causes of congenital abnormalities in a broad population.
Co-researcher Neil Small said that in absolute terms, the risk from consanguineous marriage was still small.
The study noted, in fact, that the risk was about the same as for older white British mothers – an age deemed to be 34 years and above.
Even so, “sensitive advice (about) avoidable risks” should be disseminated to communities and couples in consanguineous unions, he said. The findings should also inform health professionals in antenatal care and genetic testing.
The paper said 90 infant deaths a year among Pakistani mothers in England and Wales could be attributed to congenital anomalies.
Consanguinity is a deeply rooted social phenomenon, The Lancet noted.
“More than one billion people worldwide currently (live) in communities where consanguineous marriages are commonplace.”


‘Cousin marriage’ doubles gene risk for babies: Study – The Express Tribune

Ok I just found the time to read this article:

A total of 386 babies – three per cent – were born with anomalies ranging from problems in the nervous, respiratory and digestive systems, to urinary and genital defects and cleft palates.
This Bradford rate was nearly twice the national average, said the study.

People are frowning about the 3% is kind of funny compared to the percentage that is related to the following "other factors":

Other factors blamed for genetic flaws, such as alcohol consumption, smoking and social deprivation, can be ruled out, it said.

Try googling for the effects on child birth for any of the "other factors"

Co-researcher Neil Small said that in absolute terms, the risk from consanguineous marriage was still small.
The study noted, in fact, that the risk was about the same as for older white British mothers – an age deemed to be 34 years and above.

Something to be noted for those who want to marry older women....I am not sure of the study if they included the age at which the mother was and other things like health during pregnancy, mental state, diet, environment and other issues ALSO can cause congenital abnormalities...

BTW, A congenital disorder, or congenital disease, is a condition existing at birth and often before birth, or that develops during the first month of life (neonatal disease), regardless of causation. Of these diseases, those characterized by structural deformities are termed "congenital anomalies" and involve defects in or damage to a developing fetus

This reminds me of a joke

Why can't I date?

A guy went up to his father saying:
"Daddy, I fell in love and want to date this awesome girl!"
Father: That's great son. Who is it?
Son: It's Sandra, the neighbor's daughter.
Father: Ohhhh I wish you hadn't said that. I have to tell you something son, but you must promise not to tell your mother.. Sandra is actually your sister.
The boy is naturally bummed out, but life goes on, and indeed, a couple of months later ...
Son: Daddy, I fell in love again and she is even hotter!
Father: That's great son. Who is it?
Son: It's Angela, The other neighbor's daughter.
Father: Ohhhh I wish you hadn't said that. Angela is also your sister.
This went on couple of times and the son was so mad, he went straight to his mother crying.
Son: Mum I am so mad at dad! I fell in love with six girls but I can't date any of them because dad is their father!
The mother hugs him affectionately and says:
"My love, you can date whomever you want. He isn't your father"


I guess since in west no one marries their cousins disease is thing of the past no one gets sick or born with it

Yea, that was a joke I read somewhere where it said people dont even know who their dad was so only GOD knows if they are marrying their cousins or siblings...

 

[Awesome]

I would agree with Talon and the study is alarming especially among rural cousin marriages. Over there almost all marriages are like watta satta marriages. That is one family's son marries the other family's daughter and the other son marries the other daughter.

If these were cousin marriages and their offspring's get married off to each other as well, it will create a big mess.

Both genetically and socially.

In the 1st marriage when one couple will have problems the other couple will start quarreling with each other in support of their respective brother/sister. If their children are also married, there will be more family wars.

When one divorce happens the other automatically divorces in revenge.

Genetic abnormalities are then another issue.

 

[Roybot]

One of the main advantage is access. It is taboo to go on dates and get to know each other in Muslim circles. Cousins are at your house or you're at theirs all the time. These days cousins are increasingly even falling in love (although the overall rate of cousin marriages seems to be going down - in urban societies).

For the most part you know the girl and the guy are getting into serious relationships only and not fooling around with each other as well as families can get involved. It provides security for the girl too, to open up to a guy. 99.99% of the boys she might have access to (school, uni, work) elsewhere are after one thing only. Even the serious ones that do get into a relationship and it breaks up for whatever reason, ends up destroying the reputation of the girl at least (if not of both), rendering them unmarryable.

But cousin marriage is not as prevalent in other Muslim communities? The taboo and cultural issues you talk off surely affects other Muslim communities too.

And again these advantages that you mentioned doesn't seem to be worth the risk of giving birth to a kid with some genetic disorder.

 

[Awesome]

Yea, that was a joke I read somewhere where it said people dont even know who their dad was so only GOD knows if they are marrying their cousins or siblings...

At least the United States is predominantly a conservative society. Only on TV you see them more or less as liberal in their attitudes towards promiscuity.

We have misconceptions about them just as they have about us.

But cousin marriage is not as prevalent in other Muslim communities? The taboo and cultural issues you talk off surely affects other Muslim communities too.

Arabs have too... In fact perhaps more. I see so many neighborhoods with mentally challenged family members. But places like UAE the attitudes are different among the educated new generations and again with a lot more access to the opposite sex from childhood.

And again these advantages that you mentioned doesn't seem to be worth the risk of giving birth to a kid with some genetic disorder.

People don't fall in love thinking that far ahead. Once they are in love their risk appetite increases.

 

[Dubious]

Well, I do know some Arabs just marry within their tribes and some Arab descendents like (Syeds) while there are others who marry ONLY outside their tribes...

Well, I am not really for cousin marriage but I am not against it either...ESP NOT calling it disgusting...Don't see anything disgusting in a marriage unless you really made your cousin your sibling...which is irrational coz what you naturally arent and made it yourself, is putting yourself in complications and then comes the word incest BECAUSE YOU yourself made the person your sibling when that person REALLY ISNT...they do not share even 50% same genetic material as you (like your natural sibling) just about 25% or even less...

 

[KRAIT]

Cousin marriage should be looked from a POV, initial point of spread of Islam.

One should consider Population dynamics here too. Initially, the community size was small, no matter the conversion rate from other faiths to Islam, if you look from growth rate of population of one particular faith, such flexibility in marriages etc. had to be made to have nonlinear growth of the population size.

 

[Roybot]

Arabs have too... In fact perhaps more. I see so many neighborhoods with mentally challenged family members. But places like UAE the attitudes are different among the educated new generations and again with a lot more access to the opposite sex from childhood.



People don't fall in love thinking that far ahead. Once they are in love their risk appetite increases.

Interesting, didn't know it was prevalent in middle east too.

Still can't rationalise the risk though. I guess if cousins really do fall in love and they don't have any issues with it, then we are no one to judge them. But what about the arranged cousin marriage? Surely not all cousin marriages are purely cause of love. Isn't that something which can be avoided, given the risks of genetic disorder.


Prevalence of consanguineous marriages(cousin marriages). Had no idea it was this common in South India

 

[Roybot]

Well same case can be brought up if your "chosen" partner is also a carrier of the same "disease" you may be trying to avoid....

carrier x carrier = 50% chance of having an offspring with that disease...

Moreover NOT all cousins will have 50% the same genetic makeup as you coz you are cousins because 1 of your parent is a sibling to your cousin's.....the other parent is still somewhat foreign so it is not as significant as the study shows...

BUT if done more than frequently like you married a cousin, your sibling married a cousin of the same lineage (as in both of you married your paternal or maternal cousins) and then your child married your sib's child making 2 generations of PURE inbreeding...then YES you should be worried IF there is a disease that MAY be difficult.....

However if you marry a cousin (maternal side) and your sibling married a cousin (paternal side) and then your child and your sibling's child marry the chances of passing on some genetically disturbing disease doesnt increase in the same proportion as the 1st case I mentioned...

Interesting,

In clinical genetics, a consanguineous marriage is defined as a union between two individuals who are related as second cousins or closer, with the inbreeding coefficient (F) equal or higher than 0.0156 (Bittles,2001), where (F) represents a measure of the proportion of loci at which the offspring of a consanguineous union is expected to inherit identical gene copies from both parents. This includes unions termed first cousins, first cousins once removed and second cousins. In some communities, the highest inbreeding coefficients are reached with unions between double first cousins practiced among Arabs and uncle–niece marriages practiced in South India where (F) reaches 0.125 (Hamamy et al.2011)

Whatever the case if someone is soo crazily freaked out about this then they should just go for genetic testing...

I personally think that it should be made mandatory, perhaps a pre "cousin marriage" counselling along the lines of this. A 4-6% risk of genetic order is still pretty high imo, should be avoided where it can be.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Because "cousin" is a English word. We call our cousins Bhaiya and behen. BTW using the word cousin instead of brother or sister also makes it easy for people with incest tendency to proceed with their dirty act. As far as I know people still use the term cousin brother and cousin sister in some countries. Dunno about your though.

Well in typical desi culture you even call strangers brothers and sisters "bahi or bhaji". Just becuase you refer strangers as brother and sisters or even your cousins does not make them your real brother and sister. If India is so careful about incest acts
then it should have the least cases but this is opposite of the reality.
According to Indian survey
Of children physically abused in families, in 88.6% of the cases, it was the parents who were the perpetrators. More than 50% had been sexually abused in ways that ranged from severe — such as rape or fondling — to milder forms of molestation that included forcible kissing.

 

[Dubious]

Interesting,

I personally think that it should be made mandatory, perhaps a pre "cousin marriage" counselling along the lines of this. A 4-6% risk of genetic order is still pretty high imo, should be avoided where it can be.

Uncle niece is horrible because uncle has the same % chance of having the genetic disease as your parent....the F is high and it is damn right high....worse than children from 1st cousin marriages!

@Awesome touched a bit on double first cousins...and the problems 1 would face by that too...esp the risk of getting into fights based on what your sibling is doing to your spouse's sibling...

I personally think that it should be made mandatory, perhaps a pre "cousin marriage" counselling along the lines of this. A 4-6% risk of genetic order is still pretty high imo, should be avoided where it can be.

Err...did you understand the pix you put above? even with -ve results you have 4-6% nothing to do with 1st cousin marriages....in fact random unions can also result in a 4-6% risk...so basically if you have 1 history in the family you shouldnt marry at all?!

 

[truthseer]

Indians think cousin marriage is disgusting but have victims marry their rapists

Panchayat orders girl to marry her rapist - Times Of India

No reply?

 

[Jayanta]

Well in typical desi culture you even call strangers brothers and sisters "bahi or bhaji". Just becuase you refer strangers as brother and sisters or even your cousins does not make them your real brother and sister. If India is so careful about incest acts
then it should have the least cases but this is opposite of the reality.
According to Indian survey
Of children physically abused in families, in 88.6% of the cases, it was the parents who were the perpetrators. More than 50% had been sexually abused in ways that ranged from severe — such as rape or fondling — to milder forms of molestation that included forcible kissing.

Well that is why it is called abuse and not pleasure. Because their are some sick perverts who somehow finds satisfaction in abusing their family members is not a justification. It is not just India it a phenomenon everywhere in the world. Most of the times the perpetrators are step dad, dad, cousin uncles and such incidences are condemn able and should not be used to justify something wrong. If somebody is doing something wrong doesn't mean you should also do it.

 

[Roybot]

No reply?

Too hard for you to focus on the topic?

From Morocco to Denmark: Rape survivors around the world are forced to marry attackers | Women Under Siege Project

 

[RazorMC]

Islam considers anyone outside the immediate blood relation (parents, brothers, sisters, children etc) as na-mehram. This is why it was permitted to marry them, even if they were cousins.

But even though marriage between cousins is permitted (permitted is different from recommended) due to the smaller number of people, Islam encourages people to marry outside their tribes/circle. This is just another aspect of Islam Muslims don't pay attention to.

From what I've seen of GCC and other Arabs is that they are less likely to marry cousins than earlier generations. And it only looks to be decreasing. Problem with Pakistan though, is that the uneducated, feudal masses are largely unaware of the health risks and feel afraid of breaking traditions.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Well that is why it is called abuse and not pleasure. Because their are some sick perverts who somehow finds satisfaction in abusing their family members is not a justification. It is not just India it a phenomenon everywhere in the world. Most of the times the perpetrators are step dad, dad, cousin uncles and such incidences are condemn able and should not be used to justify something wrong. If somebody is doing something wrong doesn't mean you should also do it.

Did I even justify sexual molestation of children by Indian Fathers, brothers, or uncles? I merely said, if Indians are so worried about "cousin" marriage who consider it as incest then India should have the least cases of rapes in family! Stop hallucinating! We know you are not a victim

Too hard for you to focus on the topic?

From Morocco to Denmark: Rape survivors around the world are forced to marry attackers | Women Under Siege Project

Enjoy your Mother India democracy

Over 53% children face sexual abuse: Survey
TNN Apr 10, 2007, 12.00am IST

NEW DELHI: In a shocking revelation, a government commissioned survey has found that more than 53% of children in India are subjected to sexual abuse, but most don't report the assaults to anyone.

The survey, released on Monday and which covered different forms of child abuse — physical, sexual and emotional — as well as female child neglect, found that two out of every three children have been physically abused.

Parents and relatives, persons known to the child or in a position of trust and responsibility were mostly found to be the perpetrators of child sexual abuse in the country. According to the women and child development ministry-sponsored report, which assumes greater significance in the backdrop of the Nithari killings that brought into focus the issue of children's safety, those in the age group of 5-12 years reported higher levels of abuse.

While releasing the survey, women and child development minister Renuka Chowdhury said, "Child abuse is shrouded in secrecy and there is a conspiracy of silence around the entire subject. The ministry is working on a new law for protection of children's rights by clearly specifying offences against children and stiffening punishments."

The survey, carried out across 13 states and with a sample size of 12,447, revealed that 53.22% of children reported having faced one or more forms of sexual abuse, with Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Assam and Delhi reporting the highest percentage of such incidents. In 50% of child abuse cases, the abusers were known to the child or were in a position of trust and responsibility and most children did not report the matter to anyone.

The survey, sponsored by WCD ministry and carried out by the NGO Prayas in association with Unicef and Save the Children, found that over 50% children were subjected to one or the other form of physical abuse and more boys than girls were abused physically. The first-ever survey on child abuse in the country disclosed that nearly 65% of schoolchildren reported facing corporal punishment — beatings by teachers — mostly in government schools.

Of children physically abused in families, in 88.6% of the cases, it was the parents who were the perpetrators. More than 50% had been sexually abused in ways that ranged from severe — such as rape or fondling — to milder forms of molestation that included forcible kissing.

The study also interviewed 2,324 young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, almost half of whom reported being physically or sexually abused as children. When it comes to emotional abuse, every second child was subjected to emotional assault and in 83% of the cases, parents were the abusers.