To think first-degree cousins should not marry?

[Onestonetogo]

Message withdrawn

The children don't have a higher rate of disability purely because their parents are cousins. As I understand it is only an issue if there is a history of herediatry conditions within the family.

I think there's an MNer married to her cousin.

I would like to see your sources for the assertion that 'children born from such marriages have a very high rate of disabilities' etc. My readings seem to differ from yours considerably. Perhaps you'd like to quantify 'very high'.

i would like to see your statistics

are you researching on an academic basis?

I was aware that closer relationships than cousins had a high rate of disability (hence the fact it's illegal in most places) but not cousins.

Stats please.

Never heard of the term first-degree cousin. I have cousins and then 2nd cousins.

There is a mnr married to her cousin. I am not going to say who though.

I second soh post

Message withdrawn

Interestingly i'm currently pregnant with dc3 and the maternity notes have changed so that one of the questions is 'is the father of the baby a blood relative to you?'.

Midwife said it was because of potential problems from blood relatives having children - although it didn't specify how close a relative.

Anecdotally i know my sil whose a GP and did her training in big cities said that the NICU's had lots of babies with problems as a result of cousins marrying but that was across many generations.

my uncle married his cousin, wanna make something of it onestone?

cannot see what have muslims have got to do with this at all.

YABU and very miss informed

onstonetogo is that the best you can do - an article from feb 2008?

properly referenced medical studies please.

Just read the article and I think it is scaremongering. If you know that there are a history of medical conditions or defects in your family then perhaps you would be advised to go for some sort of genetic testing, if however there have been few medical issues in your family why should conceiving a child with a cousin mean that it is more likely to be disabled?

I think cuurent UK law is reflective of what is an acceptable level of risk

My grandparents were cousins. their 5 children were "normal"

Repeated close intermarriage generation after generation can and does cause problems. It is genetic fact and saying it is not in itself a judgement about people who choose to do so.

You know who suffered because of this a LOT?

the british royal family. Royal families & aristocracy generally, really.

Not wanting to breed with the common folk.

(and the minor pedant in me wishes to point out that there's no such thing as a first degree cousin. You can have a first degree burn though. Cousins are cousins, or 2nd cousins, or 1st cousins once removed.....)

Message withdrawn

Yes I meant researched and properly referenced academic/medical studies.

I think there at the very least is some confusion surrounding a history of genetic conditions and increased probabilities and the actual risk of conditions arinsing merely from the fact of the familial relation.

There is a 'risk' and that risk is higher than for unrelated marriages. It isn't 'very high' though, marginally higher.

I don't have it to hand but research I read recently suggested that it's between 1 and 3% higher than for non-related couples. So 'very high' is quite misleading. I apologise though as I don't have the research here.

I know two children who were born to parents that are first cousins and they both have genetic problems, they are caucasian and not muslim.

LOL I was going to point out that British royalty have some fairly recessive chins

Meh cousins are probably all right, wouldn't want to make a habit of it within a family though. Also Muslims are not the only people who follows these practices - see above point about royal family.

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins.

Ironically enough, Charles Darwin also married his first cousin.

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins.

Ironically enough, Charles Darwin also married his first cousin.

"I'm surprised. I thought it was common knowledge that first cousins have higher rates of birth defects. Which is why although many societies (including British) have tolerated it at times, it has also often been outlawed."

If that is true, why has marrying someone with a similar history of genetic illness to you not been outlawed or indeed made illegal?

Using that arguement everyone who decides to phave children should have genetic testing done, and be forced to divorce or at the very least be banned from having children.

here's something citing research. apparently quite a small risk.

The risk of giving birth to babies with genetic defects as a result of marriages between first cousins is no greater than that run by women over 40 who become pregnant, according to two scientists who call for the taboo on first-cousin families to be lifted.

Women in their 40s are not made to feel guilty about having babies and the same should apply to cousins who want to marry, said Professor Diane Paul of the University of Massachusetts in Boston and Professor Hamish Spencer of the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand.

Although first-cousin marriages are legal in Britain, there have been calls to ban the practice because of reports that it has resulted in a higher-than-average incidence of birth defects in certain immigrant communities where it is common and culturally acceptable.

However, Paul and Spencer said the risk of congenital defects is about 2 per cent higher than average for babies born to first-cousin marriages with the infant mortality about 4.4 per cent higher which is on a par with the risk to babies born to women over 40.

Message withdrawn