NHS defends cousin marriages because ‘only 15pc lead to birth defects’
www.yahoo.com
The NHS has defended cousin marriage because most do not lead to birth defects, it has emerged.

Midwives have been told about the benefits of “close relative marriage” in training documents that minimise the risks to couples’ children.

The documents claim “85 to 90 per cent of cousin couples do not have affected children” and warn staff that “close relative marriage is often stigmatised in England”, adding claims that “the associated genetic risks have been exaggerated”.

  • Railcar8095@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    1 day ago

    Devils advocate: I have a genetic defect that has 50% chance of being passed to my children. It causes bone tumors that range from stetic to life changing.

    We only managed to ensure it wasn’t with expensive DNA tests pre - implantation.

    Should I be barred from marriage if I can’t pay for that?

    It’s not a hypothetical

    • Atlas_@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      19 hours ago

      Do you think it’s (morally) right for you to have kids that you know would have a 50% chance to have bone tumors?

      Sex bans are generally not workable. A marriage ban for you would be restrictive. This is very different for cousins, because there’s plenty of non-cousin alternatives for everyone.

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      151·
      1 day ago

      Not sure what marriage has to do with it in either case tbh. The cousinfuckers can have babies without getting married and so can you lol

      But I do understand your point. It’s an ethical dilemma and not a simple one. I mean on a policy level. I imagine on a personal level it’s easier to say “the risk is too great, I won’t do it” as opposed to policymakers saying “the risk is too great, you shouldn’t be allowed to have children”