When Cousins Marry

[Dedworth]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/d...es/4od#3116215

Dispatches reveals the tragic consequences of first cousin marriage in Britain. Every year such marriages cause hundreds of children to be born with terrible disabilities; one third of whom are so ill that they die before they are five years old.

The practice is most common in Britain's Pakistani community, in which more than 50% of people marry their first cousin, and in Bradford 75% of ethnic Pakistanis follow the tradition.

A foul stone age practice which should be outlawed in the UK - it is rampant and costing us (the taxpayer) millions of £'s

[JimOttley]

Deliberate well thought out inbreeding can produce thoroughbred results but you need to know what you are trying to select for in the first place.

Speciation ultimately occurs by accident when members of a species become sufficiently isolated from each other, that isolation can be be physical, logical or also as in the case of humans cultural.

The reason we have so many varieties of horses, cattle and other controlled species is the result of long deliberate programs of inbreeding with occasional deliberate cross breeding that introduces new traits. Only a few thousand years ago dogs were all wolves, we turned the wolves into dogs!

So from our long history of breeding other animals it is very well known that inbreeding always results in huge numbers of failed births and also many many individuals that are not viable in the long term, this is nothing new why would we expect it to be different in people?

Morally, in the modern world, for human beings it is just wrong and totally unnecessary, it's an uncontrolled experiment with no concious direction.

If they were pairing up children from family's who had long lived grandparents then they might be selecting for longevity but this experiment with peoples life's appears to have no goal.

I agree it is wrong and the denial of the scientific facts by those who practice this cultural tradition is just mind-boggling.


Jim

[KeithD]

You'll find if you take your family tree back far enough you are the consequence of such a relationship at some point. This explains why the world population is not well over 10 Billion as it would be if it was for inbreeding. It was common practise in the West in Ye Olde Days

....and it didn't do us in the West any harm, look at excellent public people like George Bush .... and me ... I'm totally sane

Look at America.... around 10% of the population goes back to about 2 pilgrim boats that landed, all full of families... with a good number bonking cousins.

Methinks CH4 are just making a story out of small numbers, as such inbreeding goes on in other animals daily and only a minority have genetic problems, however the stats of these problems is higher than if non-cousins bonked, but the numbers are still small in the overall scheme of things. In fact every human has a genetic flaw, most don't show themselves till you are older.... breast cancer susceptibility for one.

In normal pregnancy, only 5% of fertilised eggs make it to be a teenager.

[stevewool]

i fancied my cousin once

[KeithD]

i fancied my cousin once

Just the once

[stevewool]

yer then got caught

[Doc Alan]

In fact every human has a genetic flaw, most don't show themselves till you are older.... breast cancer susceptibility for one.

Gene alterations (mutations) are central to the cancer process. Mutations can be inherited but in most cases they occur during a person's lifetime. Cancer genes (oncogenes) cause normal cells to grow out of control and become cancer cells. This is a multistep process, with accumulation of mutations in key genes ( and inactivation of tumour suppressor genes).
Such mutations obviously take time, and they work in combination with lifestyle factors and choices (such as diet and smoking). There is also an element of luck it has to be said ! That's why most cancers occur in older people, and also occasionally lifelong cigarette smokers survive to 100 !

[KeithD]

.... and also occasionally lifelong cigarette smokers survive to 100 !

Aha.... but they may have lived to 200 if they hadn't

[Dedworth]

Methinks CH4 are just making a story out of small numbers, as such inbreeding goes on in other animals daily and only a minority have genetic problems, however the stats of these problems is higher than if non-cousins bonked, but the numbers are still small in the overall scheme of things. In fact every human has a genetic flaw, most don't show themselves till you are older.... breast cancer susceptibility for one.

In normal pregnancy, only 5% of fertilised eggs make it to be a teenager.

Did you watch the C4 programme ( http://www.channel4.com/programmes/d...s-68/episode-1) and listen to the medical experts ? Next time you are in an area with a predominantly Pakistani population have a look at the abnormal facial features and blotchy brown/white skin pigmentation of some of the kids/teenagers

[KeithD]

Yes, but as I said, the stats aren't much different for any group inbreeding, but it's a great live experiment for biologists

[Arthur Little]

i fancied my cousin once

... so did I, Steve ... when I was about 4 yrs old!

[stevewool]

by crike Arthur, 4 years old all i fancied then was tinger and tucker or could have been auntie jean and food

[Dedworth]

Yes, but as I said, the stats aren't much different for any group inbreeding, but it's a great live experiment for biologists

And a great cost to the UK taxpayer funding the NHS - diverting resources away from people suffering from non inbreeding conditions

[KeithD]

You could say the same about drinkers, smokers, druggies and fat people.... which is over 80% of the population.

[Dedworth]

You could say the same about drinkers, smokers, druggies and fat people.... which is over 80% of the population.

Stock answer to any querying of NHS funds, - thread concerns alien /stoneage practises by a small minority impacting greatly on the taxpayer. I like food and alcohol but don't overdo it - life would be dull without.

[KeithD]

You could argue that couples who have one disabled child should be banned from having more. I know one family that had 3, all with the same severe condition, hell of a drain for taxpayers as each one needed specialized care, and the parents knew the odds of having another after the first one.

[Dedworth]

You could argue that couples who have one disabled child should be banned from having more. I know one family that had 3, all with the same severe condition, hell of a drain for taxpayers as each one needed specialized care, and the parents knew the odds of having another after the first one.

Yes but I think this practice should be banned as it hugely increases the probability of the offspring being born with defects particularly within an ethnic group as featured on C4 who have done it within the same family for untold generations

[Doc Alan]

The cost to the taxpayer should be the least of the worries about the tragic consequences of hundreds of children born with disabilities (one third dying before the age of 5).
60% of the annual NHS budget of 100 billion GBP goes on staff, 20% on drugs and other supplies ,and the rest on buildings, training, catering , and equipment.
Life expectancy has risen, and infant mortality fallen, ever since the start of the NHS in 1948. The common conditions treated, like cancer and heart disease, cost far more than genetic disorders, and in many cases are due to lifestyle. It's up to agencies like NICE to decide on evidence-based treatment, but cost (alone) and lifestyle choices (alone) should never be the criteria for denying treatment. Sadly cost may be the deciding factor to individuals in the Philippines who envy our NHS, still largely free at the point of use.