NHS Tells Midwives Not to “Stigmatise” Cousin Marriage Because “Only 15% Lead to Birth Defects”. Whatever Next?
As it emerges that the NHS training has told midwives not to “stigmatise” cousin marriage because “only 15% lead to birth defects”, the Telegraph‘s Michael Deacon wonders where this pandering to multicultural madness might lead.
Last September the NHS caused something of a stir by publishing an article that extolled the supposed benefits of marrying your first cousin. According to the article, published by NHS England’s Genomics Education Programme, cousin marriage – which is particularly widespread in families of Pakistani Muslim heritage – can have “economic advantages”.
A fascinating claim. I wonder whether the authors would say that marrying your sister has “economic advantages”, too. After all, the wedding would be a lot cheaper. Because the bride’s family would also be the groom’s.
Anyway, less than six months later, the NHS is now embroiled in a second row over cousin marriage – because it’s emerged that even more eye-opening claims have been made in training guidance for midwives. Somewhat controversially, this guidance declares that the “increased risk of genetic conditions among the offspring of close relative couples” has “often been exaggerated”. It also tells midwives that “discouraging cousin marriage is inappropriate”, and that they must not “stigmatise” patients who have a baby with their first cousin – because, in some cultures, it’s “perfectly normal”.
Since this guidance came to light, the NHS has assured the public that it “absolutely recognises the genetic risks of consanguineous relationships”, and promised to remove any “inappropriate wording”. Personally I think this is rather a pity, because I’d been planning to offer the NHS the following guidance of my own, regarding other cruelly maligned customs. In the name of inclusivity, I do hope the NHS will still consider it.
Witchcraft
Although peer-reviewed studies have yet to prove that disease can be cured using magic, this practice is considered perfectly normal in some cultures, and should therefore be adopted immediately by the NHS. Doctors are advised that it is considered particularly useful when dealing with patients possessed by evil spirits.
Suttee
Hurling yourself on to the blazing funeral pyre of your deceased husband may be frowned on by some in the UK, but this ancient custom does have economic advantages. Given the ever-rising cost of heating bills, it represents a much cheaper way to keep warm.
Cannibalism
The consumption of other human beings offers a number of key health benefits. First, human flesh is an excellent source of protein, iron, zinc and essential B vitamins. Also, unlike many meat products sold in supermarkets, it is not processed and contains no added flavourings or preservatives. Patients are to be reminded, however, that human flesh should be eaten as part of a balanced diet, because excessive consumption can lead to an increased risk of heart disease, bowel cancer and life imprisonment.
Note: NHS staff are advised not to stigmatise members of the cannibal community. Not least because this could lead to the staff being eaten themselves.
Worth reading in full.
Image: Screenshot from Netflix’s When Cousins Marry (2010).
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Thalidomide had a much lower rate of birth defects.
And rubella in pregnancy.
Dr Garvey, are we feeling humerus?🦴👨⚕️
“Just want to say always trust the nhs. They were excellent removing a mole from my arse. Unlike the RSPCA who will prosecute me if I do it again.”
Welsh Laurie.
Couldn’t resist 😳.
Stupid place to shove a mole anyway. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cIn6HfhzTc
Those teaching this should be made to pay for the care of those with the resulting birth defects.
Yes of course I see and appeciate the cost side.
But on a purely human level I think it is about the kids themselves who go through life maimed in whatever way it comes out.
Simply not acceptable. There can be no justification for this kind of idiotic and incredibly damaging advice. These relationships need to be stigmatised at the very least and as far as possible, made illegal.
I don’t think making them illegal makes much sense. I think the state should stay outside of regulating sexual relations of people as much as possible and it makes little sense to throw some dimwit into jail just because he keeps shagging his sister (or she him, depending on how one wants to see this).
But people who are mentally competent to understand the risk should be very clearly informed about it, especially if they’re Muslims. If you want healthy offspring, don’t do that. 15% chance of a birth defect means that the chance that all of 4 children which are born are healthy is only 52%¹.
¹ Perl function which calculates the chance that all of n children which are born will be healthy:
sub hc { (17 ** $_[0]) / (20 ** $_[0]) * 100 }
Explanation of the math behind this (as I just had to work this out again)
Assuming there are n possible outcomes and m wanted outcomes of some random selection experiment, the probabliity that a wanted outcome will occur is m / n (m divided by n). Assuming the experiment is repeated twice, the total number of possible outcomes is now n * n (n times n) and the total number of wanted outcomes m * m. This series repeats in this way which means if an experiment with n possible and m wanted outcomes is repeated x times, the probability that only wanted outcomes will occur is (m^x)/(n/^x), m to the xth power divided by n to the xth power. For percentages, the quotients need to be multiplied with 100.
Yeah, because there’s plenty of slack in paediatric healthcare and such, so great!
Thanks, this article gave me and the better half a right good chuckle!
cousin marriage … can have “economic advantages
That’s true. For example birth defects can lead to house extensions paid for by the tax-payers, and endless and unlimited care and support paid for by the taxpayers. Sometimes this runs into millions of pounds.
and a free car!
How long do you think it will be before the NHS starts advocating FGM ?
The NHS is already advocating genital mutilation as cure for so-called gender confusion. Maybe not yet (or not anymore) officially, but there are certainly plenty of people working for the NHS who gladly would.
15% is a horrendously high rate. If this is accurate, 3 out of every 20 children born to married cousins will have a birth defect. This is not only cruel to these children, it’s also a huge and entirely avoidable cost to the health system.
Someone urgently needs to learn some pretty basic math here¹.
¹ 15% is 15/100 = 6⅔. The smallest integer which is a multiple of 6⅔ is 20 (6⅔ x 3).
Add this to the recent case in Northampton where the Iman wasn’t prosecuted for marrying 2 16 year olds.
What we’re witnessing is the onset of Sharia and its elevation over British law.
Expect more examples, inc what we saw with Birmingham’s Chief Constable.
If observable birth defects are 15% then non-observable genetic defects will be greater – these will come out in later generations unless diluted by out-marriage.
This is not the sort of thing that can be fixed by a single generation rejecting cousin marriage. Birth defects will still be greater than in the general population until several generations of out-marriage have been achieved.
A deeply flawed opinion…
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/2013725335041474950
Sometimes the NHS makes me want to bang my head against the wall, I simply can’t imagine why the people saying this don’t understand that occasional FCM as practised by us Brits is fairly innocuous although needs good sense and restraint.
When it comes to cultures that practise it constantly and repeatedly the stats become seriously problematic.
Only 20% of smokers die from lung cancer, so hey lets all just light up.
This number is seriously too large. The most common cause of death is dementia, followed by so-called heart disease. The latter is also blamed on smoking if it could be established that the affected person smoked. It’s blamed on God-only-know-what for everybody else, ie, the majority of cases. This is deeply unserious lobbywork.
Real world example: During a holiday in Spain some years ago, Jeremy Clarkson was hospitalized for something (IIRC, pneumonia) and convinced to give up smoking to improve his health. A year later, his health had improved so much that is life was just saved by an emergency operation because of acute arteriosclerosis.
What’s so difficult in understanding that these people are always fabricating statistics and always lying?
Perhaps we should re-balance the economic “benefits.”
Any cousin-marriage which results in a deformed or genetically-compromised child should receive absolutely NO welfare payments or social support for that child.
They created it: let them pay for it.
The NHS also needs rebalancing: Telling people that cousin marriage is fine because of culture when the chance that eight children born to married cousins are all born healthy is less than ⅓ (27.2%) while chastizing other people for drinking a two pints a day because of “health” aka it’s only not ok if it happens to be our culture, regardless of health outcomes, is not acceptible for a public body tasked with health preservation and restoration.
I have a genetic (recessive) condition where both parents have to carry the same faulty gene, which is why my condition is ultra rare (approximately 200 in the UK). With recessive conditions there is a 1 in 4 theoretical risk of acquiring the condition. It is ultra rare in western cultures simply because of the gene pool size. In areas where there are high concentrations of cultures where first cousins routinely marry there is a significantly higher incidence of my condition for obvious reasons. Precisely why first cousin marriage should be banned.
Practically everything people do could have negative effects on their health. Because of this, I think it’s wrong to let the state outlaw something just because it carries a some health risk, that is, because a negative health effect could result from it. The state isn’t the super-parent of all adults and responsible for deciding which risks they’re allowed to take. The inevitable outcome of that is that such decisions end up becoming entirely political: It’s considered politically convenient to avoid upsetting Muslims, hence, NHS employees are asked to pretend that cousin marriages are not immensely risky. Nobody gives a farthing about English culture and hence, the NHS is on an endless and vehement crusade against ale despite the health risks of that are much lower and the evidence for them – usually produced by the teetotaller lobby – much more questionable.
IMHO, the only solution to that is: Let people decide which risks they’re willing to take and try to provide them with accurate, impartial statistics so that they can make informed decisions.