From the Daily Telegraph:
The NHS has been urged to apologise for publishing guidance extolling the benefits of first-cousin marriage despite the increased risk of birth defects.
Guidance published last week by the NHS England’s Genomics Education Programme says first-cousin marriage is linked to “stronger extended family support systems and economic advantages”.
But the practice has also been linked to oppression of women and also has a proven increased risk of genetic disease in offspring of first-cousin relationships.
Richard Holden, the Tory MP, told the Mail On Sunday: “Our NHS should stop taking the knee to damaging and oppressive cultural practices…” [1]
The item under discussion here is a short blog post that appeared a week ago under a strand entitled “Genomics in Practice” and titled “Should the UK ban first-cousin marriage?”. It is not “NHS guidance”; indeed, it ended with the disclaimer that “This article is for informational or educational purposes, and does not substitute professional medical advice”. This is acknowledged at the end of the Telegraph and Mail on Sunday pieces, where “a spokesman for NHS England” is quoted as saying that “The article published on the website of the Genomics Education Programme is a summary of existing scientific research and the public policy debate. It is not expressing an NHS view.”
The post was deleted following the adverse media coverage, but it can still be accessed on the Internet Archive. Contrary to the impression given by the Telegraph, the post acknowledged the points about oppression of women and increased genetic risk, and it noted in particular recent BBC coverage of increased rates of genetic illness in Bradford. However, this is balanced with the views of “Professor Sam Oddie, who has worked with families affected by genetic conditions in Bradford for over 20 years”. Oddie argues that endogamy “in which people marry within the limits of their close community” is more significant than first-cousin marriage, and that
genetic counselling, awareness-raising initiatives and public health campaigns are all important tools to help families make informed decisions without stigmatising certain communities and cultural traditions. In order to balance respect for cultural practices with evidence-based healthcare, Professor Oddie stresses a focus on what he calls ‘genetic literacy’ – that is, education and voluntary screening – rather than simply banning the practice of first-cousin marriage.
The issue of “benefits” came near the end of the post:
Research into first-cousin marriage describes various potential benefits, including stronger extended family support systems and economic advantages (resources, property and inheritance can be consolidated rather than diluted across households).
This is a perfectly reasonable observation that helps to explain why the practice persists and even has defenders: acknowledging the perceived reality of “potential benefits” does not mean “extolling” them. Oddie’s arguments against a ban are debatable, but are not so self-evidently wrong that they ought not to be aired on a science website. (2)
The Mail on Sunday report on which the Telegraph article is based comes via the paper’s political editor, Glen Owen, which is why it is primarily a vehicle for Richard Holden. However, there is also a Daily Mail version that focuses more on criticisms made by Pakistani-heritage opponents of cousin marriage. It should be noted that the practice is actually now in decline in Bradford.
The MoS also includes a quote from “Dr Patrick Nash, an expert on religious law and director of the Pharos Foundation”:
‘Cousin marriage is incest, plain and simple, and needs to be banned with the utmost urgency – there is no ‘balance’ to be struck between this cultural lifestyle choice and the severe public health implications it incurs.
‘This official article is deeply misleading and should be retracted with an apology so that the public is not misled by omission and half-truths.’
Nash published an article putting forward several lines of argument in favour of a ban last year – it was cited in the House of Commons by Holden in Decembere and is available on open access here. It’s actually a stronger piece than one might expect given the simplistic shrillness of his newspaper quote.
Footnotes
1. Holden’s reference to “taking the knee” is part of a strategy whereby the BLM protest gesture is reframed as an attitude of white submissiveness, divorced from its original context as a gesture of solidarity with Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the US national anthem as a protest against police brutality.
2. The post also notes that “UK laws allowing first-cousin marriage date back to the reign of Henry VIII in the 16th century: having broken with Rome in order to marry Anne Boleyn, Henry passed a new law that enabled him to marry her cousin, Catherine Howard, four years after Anne’s execution”. Critics of the post cite this passage as evidence that its author doesn’t know the difference between consanguinity and marrying an in-law, although ironically the source provided for the detail is Holden’s own reference to it in Parliament. The most famous cousin marriage in British history of course is probably that of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert; most people would regard describing it as an incestuous union as ludicrously polemical.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Leave a Reply