View Full Version : Gene pool needs a dredge.....
percy toboggan
11-Feb-08, 17:08
Because it's getting shallower amongst some communities apparently. There is a large rise in the numbers of children born with recessive genetic defects. Primarily, the cause is marriage between first cousins, especially when they come from isolated rural communites in places like Pakistan. The problem is most acute in places like West Yorkshire, and inner-city Birmingham. Some couples have brought disabled children into the world and gone on to do so again - despite warnings.
The number of still births to women of Asian origin is also climbing. In addition to the huge cost of all this to the NHS we are also talking about personal tragedies here which could be avoided by education and cultural change.
But, what is the best way of getting the message across, when many of the mothers concerned do not speak English?
Because it's getting shallower amongst some communities apparently. There is a large rise in the numbers of children born with recessive genetic defects. Primarily, the cause is marriage between first cousins, especially when they come from isolated rural communites in places like Pakistan. The problem is most acute in places like West Yorkshire, and inner-city Birmingham. Some couples have brought disabled children into the world and gone on to do so again - despite warnings.
The number of still births to women of Asian origin is also climbing. In addition to the huge cost of all this to the NHS we are also talking about personal tragedies here which could be avoided by education and cultural change.
But, what is the best way of getting the message across, when many of the mothers concerned do not speak English?
Massive problem around olot of the uk.Unfortunately there is no easy way about this unless you get in alot of interpreters
Surely the problem is the same in pakistan too, so why arent they being educated about this over there?
This should be being taught at school during sex education if its a growing concern.
percy toboggan
11-Feb-08, 17:42
I'm not 100% sure but think it's legal to marry your first cousin here and has been for a long time....so perhaps our own laws are sending out the wrong signals. The practice is rare between Brits but commonplace in Pakistan - it's seen as keeping 'wealth' within the family. It's easy to condemn I s'pose but much of this 'wealth' will not amount to much so we shouldn't pre-judge.
Another case of east is east etc...which needs sorting out fast.
Before anyone imagines I've made this up or purloined it from the Daily Wail (good put down btw HW)....I listened intently to this on BBC Radio 4 this morning.
lassieinfife
11-Feb-08, 17:55
We have as you will no doubt have heard a brother and sister here in Glenrothes,who were both adopted, met and fell in love without realising they were related who are fighting in the courts for the right to marry,what worries me about this is any resulting children,not sure if they have a child already or not
Yup, up to first cousin is fine to marry.
Wouldn't want to though.... urg.
Prohibited marriages list.......
http://www.weddingguideuk.com/articles/legal/prohibited.asp
Thebiggest reason why they are not educated is in pakistan children are a comodity.They have more homeless unwanted children over there..All families believe that keeping it in the family genetic poole is the best for clean family blood lines.A pity someone has not tols them what happens...Maybe the british goverment should step in or they could always make sure that the new arrivals are educated as they arrive in the contry...Coming originally from a place they call Boltonstan, the birth defects in asian children were 2-4 pregnancies..I saw a couple in Princess Anne Matrenity unit whilst having 4 of my kids...
The same thing ocurs throughout most of the Muslim World. It is not lack of eduction that is the problem, it is that the family want to retain wealth within their own extended family.
Valerie Campbell
11-Feb-08, 19:41
Prohibited marriages list.......
http://www.weddingguideuk.com/articles/legal/prohibited.asp
I've just read this list. I couldn't help laughing at the bit about the man not being allowed to marry his great-grandmother/ great-granddaughter. Would he want to???!!!! Even the thought....yuk.
But, what is the best way of getting the message across, when many of the mothers concerned do not speak English?
How do you know that they do not speak english??????
Probably teenage pregnancy can now be explained due to the fact that the youngsters concerned were not spoken to in whatever slang is current!
If you had heard the whole radio four programme, you would have picked up on the fact that birth defects were (slightly) higher in communities where marriage with cousins has been customary. Something that is/was very common in isolated small communities where no matter who you married they were, to some degree, related to you. The difference of recessive genetic birth defects between married cousins and the general population is not as huge as many are led to believe ( something else that was raised in the aformentioned BBC radio 4 programme).
orkneylass
11-Feb-08, 19:54
How do you know that they do not speak english??????
Probably teenage pregnancy can now be explained due to the fact that the youngsters concerned were not spoken to in whatever slang is current!
If you had heard the whole radio four programme, you would have picked up on the fact that birth defects were (slightly) higher in communities where marriage with cousins has been customary. Something that is/was very common in isolated small communities where no matter who you married they were, to some degree, related to you. The difference of recessive genetic birth defects between married cousins and the general population is not as huge as many are led to believe ( something else that was raised in the aformentioned BBC radio 4 programme).
Well said. There is a lot of racism on this Board with plenty of assumptions and judgments being made about "them" and what "they" do or should do. Let's not forget that the Nazis also wished to get rid of disability...it wasn't only Jews that were so devalued as human beings that they got sent to the death camps.
Ok, so what about the white minorities.Sorry to say that it happens in all walks of life.I do believe there are quite alot of whites that marry their cousins, maybe not fully understanding the the genetics are too close for breeding habbits....
orkneylass
11-Feb-08, 19:58
Ok, so what about the white minorities.Sorry to say that it happens in all walks of life.I do believe there are quite alot of whites that marry their cousins, maybe not fully understanding the the genetics are too close for breeding habbits....
Did you actually read what Ju wrote?
Ok, so what about the white minorities.Sorry to say that it happens in all walks of life.I do believe there are quite alot of whites that marry their cousins, maybe not fully understanding the the genetics are too close for breeding habbits....
I think the point Percy was trying to make was that it is the repeated marrying within the family group which has caused these problems to arise. One off marriages would not present the same results.
percy toboggan
11-Feb-08, 20:19
The M.P. who raised this subject - Phil Woolas has already received 'death threats' how predictable.
Local news tonight showed many in Oldham enthusing about marrying their cousins....one bloke wanted to 'keep the family blood together.'
Oh very dear - beam me up.
I think the point Percy was trying to make was that it is the repeated marrying within the family group which has caused these problems to arise. One off marriages would not present the same results.
Yes i know what percy was saying, but it does hapen in white society.There are many that have married their cousins and then their children have dodne it aswell.It has to mess up the genes somewhere along the line would you not think....
northener
11-Feb-08, 20:34
............maybe not fully understanding the the genetics are too close for breeding habbits....
Did you mean Hobbits?:eek:
Or Rabbits? Thumper may have something to say about this.....
.
Did you mean Hobbits?:eek:
Or Rabbits? Thumper may have something to say about this.....
.
No i meant Habbits....
northener
11-Feb-08, 20:39
No i meant Habbits....
There you are then, if Hobbits and rabbits breed too closely you get habbits.
Percy's point about breeding has been proved.:D
.
Madpict's link #7: "if a man wishes to marry his daughter-in-law, both his son and his son's mother must be dead."
Found this*
'In practice this means that a woman could marry her father-in-law only if her husband and her mother-in-law are deceased or divorced.'
Complicated 'aint it?
*http://iq.lycos.co.uk/qa/show/1608/Is+it+OK+to+marry+your+cousin%3F/ (http://iq.lycos.co.uk/qa/show/1608/Is+it+OK+to+marry+your+cousin?/)
helenwyler
11-Feb-08, 21:11
Remove the double B recessive spelling and you get 'habits'....good breeding removes the danger!;)
Remove the double B recessive spelling and you get 'habits'....good breeding removes the danger!;)
Sorry if i spelt it wrong, its a bad HABIT I have....
But then my spelling goes as the day goes to night..Get me in the morning when my brain works...HE HE
j4bberw0ck
12-Feb-08, 00:39
I'm sorry, but 30 seconds of Googling and thinking will lead inevitably to the conclusion that this is just another (Labour) MP who's consumed with wanting to ban things - a bansturbator, in other words. The media, of course, love to punch Percy's buttons - amongst others.
Pakistanis have been marrying first cousins forever. There may be an extended risk where there've been several intermarriages in a single family, but the risk is very low, as borne out by the The Wellcome Foundation (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020975.html).
There's a 4% risk - 1 in 25 pregnancies - they say, that a child born to a related couple may, perhaps, have some genetic issue - ranging from so minor it can't be detected, to severe, presumably. Source: Wellcome.
But a similar and only slightly smaller risk occurs in all parents; if you want to ban first cousin marriage and offspring you need to look at genetic testing for ALL parents, even, perish the thought, if they're truck drivers in England of impeccable English stock!
The real risk is very small, whether it's Pakistani first cousins, or English / Scottish second cousins, truck drivers, or complete strangers. If 4% is an unacceptable risk, then all overweight Caucasian women MUST, now, immediately, be banned from having children as the risk of pre-eclampsia and death is 4 - 8% per pregnancy.
Further, only women who pass screening at an acceptably low risk of complications of any sort should be permitted to breed.
Any thoughts, Percy? Tattoo'ed forearms? Breeding licences? Invading other countries for breeding stock?
Damn, no, of course! Someone beat us to it in the 1930's!
There's a 4% risk - 1 in 25 pregnancies - they say, that a child born to a related couple may, perhaps, have some genetic issue - ranging from so minor it can't be detected, to severe, presumably. Source: Wellcome.
That is quite interesting. However, if you are against preventing/banning a whole range of contagions, diseases, etc because of the risk factors being low of any one of them when taken individually then imo that is very poor thinking because of the cumulative effects.
For example, I forget the figures exactly, but the maximum annual radiation dose in the UK that anyone should be exposed is 50mSv which equates to an annual risk of 0.00025% of developing cancer. The risk of developing cancer without being exposed to radiation is a lot higher. No one would suggest that we stop regulating radiation workers because the risks of them being exposed to higher doses are extremely small.
In essence, what I am trying to say is that it would be a demolition of the Government's duty of care to not advise health risks of certain activities(marriage to first cousins incl) or ban certain things in our lives without due reason.
That is quite interesting. However, if you are against preventing/banning a whole range of contagions, diseases, etc because of the risk factors being low of any one of them when taken individually then imo that is very poor thinking because of the cumulative effects.
For example, I forget the figures exactly, but the maximum annual radiation dose in the UK that anyone should be exposed is 50mSv which equates to an annual risk of 0.00025% of developing cancer. The risk of developing cancer without being exposed to radiation is a lot higher. No one would suggest that we stop regulating radiation workers because the risks of them being exposed to higher doses are extremely small.
In essence, what I am trying to say is that it would be a demolition of the Government's duty of care to not advise health risks of certain activities(marriage to first cousins incl) or ban certain things in our lives without due reason.
Wouldn't it be a lot less hassle to just remove first cousins from the list of allowed marriages? It would, at the very least, save us from the pontification of all those MPs who are desperately searching for an issue to make their names memorable.
In essence, what I am trying to say is that it would be a demolition of the Government's duty of care to not advise health risks of certain activities(marriage to first cousins incl) or ban certain things in our lives without due reason.
That is why information is essencial. As mothers have become older, a protocol of testing has been adopted to accomodate that choice and detect potencial problems. Testing for recessive genetic problems will probably become more and more mainsteam and eventually be used to detect potencial problems such as these.
The problem with banning the marriage of cousins is the justification: there is not a significant birth defect difference between couples who are not related and those who are ( ie: cousins). So how would a ban be justified?
The UK is alot more stringent with incest laws than much of europe. Incest here is defined to the point of step siblings, I believe. The marriage of cousins does not bother me at all especially when compared to the permissable marriage of half siblings in sweden (?..... read this somewhere a short while ago, but not sure where).
j4bberw0ck
12-Feb-08, 10:36
In essence, what I am trying to say is that it would be a demolition of the Government's duty of care to not advise health risks
I agree, with the emphasis on "advise". But the evidence of actual harm from first cousin marriages (while it's not disputed that there's a potential for harm) is that it's a low risk, and certainly not as our politician friend makes it sound. There are other things to be worried about. Chlamydia would be a good starting point; there's something that affects (if figures are to believed) 10% of the sexually active population of young people and causes real harm.
The thing about first cousin marriages is that they're essentially dynastic - the whole history of the UK and its constituent countries is underpinned with arranged marriages to first cousins and the like to cement political bonds between branches of families, or families with common interests.
Arranged marriages to first cousins in Islamic societies make perfect sense for all the same reasons. Islamic societies tend to have a huge burden of the very poor and uneducated, for whom arranged marriage is about day-to-day survival. They have a small but hugely wealthy ruling class, for whom it's about building long-term survival strategies.
At the risk of offending the terminally liberal, the simple truth is that sociologically and technologically, Islamic society is limping its way through the stages we got past about 500 years ago. I read an article a while back which suggested that a comparison can be made like this:
Patents registered, 1977 - 2004:
Japan............................................. ........574,865
Rest of world.........................................3,10 1,719
Organisation of Islamic Conference countries:....1,542
IBM alone, between 1993 and 1999, registered over 10,000 patents.
Islamic society, with its mixture of repression and what could easily be mistaken for an ambition to keep the poor and ignorant, poor and ignorant, isn't doing itself any favours.
northener
12-Feb-08, 15:15
.............
At the risk of offending the terminally liberal, the simple truth is that sociologically and technologically, Islamic society is limping its way through the stages we got past about 500 years ago. I read an article a while back which suggested that a comparison can be made like this:
Patents registered, 1977 - 2004:
Japan............................................. ........574,865
Rest of world.........................................3,10 1,719
Organisation of Islamic Conference countries:....1,542
IBM alone, between 1993 and 1999, registered over 10,000 patents.
Islamic society, with its mixture of repression and what could easily be mistaken for an ambition to keep the poor and ignorant, poor and ignorant, isn't doing itself any favours.
Which is a great shame, if one looks back to the Middle Ages, Islam and the Middle Eastern world were at the forefront of Science, Medicine and Tolerance. All this at the same time that we were burning those who questioned the Church's teachings......
Sadly, they (Islamists) are now viewed as a group with no ambitions for the future and only a repressive doctrine that harkens back to the 'golden age' of Islam, but without the benefits.
A complete reversal of ideals and fortunes?
.
That is quite interesting. However, if you are against preventing/banning a whole range of contagions, diseases, etc because of the risk factors being low of any one of them when taken individually then imo that is very poor thinking because of the cumulative effects.
For example, I forget the figures exactly, but the maximum annual radiation dose in the UK that anyone should be exposed is 50mSv which equates to an annual risk of 0.00025% of developing cancer. The risk of developing cancer without being exposed to radiation is a lot higher. No one would suggest that we stop regulating radiation workers because the risks of them being exposed to higher doses are extremely small.
In essence, what I am trying to say is that it would be a demolition of the Government's duty of care to not advise health risks of certain activities(marriage to first cousins incl) or ban certain things in our lives without due reason.
The dose limit for radiation workers is no more than 100mSv in any five year period (20mSv per year) with a proviso that in exceptional circumstances a dose limit of 50mSv may be applied for in advance. The stochastic risk associated with this is around about 1 in 1250. In practice the radaiton dose received by classified radaition workers is a fraction of the dose limit, somewhere around 1mSv - this has a stochastic risk of cancer at around 1 in 17000. It is impossible for anyone NOT to be exposed to radiation and the average dose to members of the public is around 2.2mSv per year off course Radiation workers get there dose over and above this. What is interesting is the risk of cancer amongst radiaiton workers is slightly less than members of the public, due to other life quality factors i.e. those who work with ionizing radiaiton tend to be paid well so can afford a good healthy diet, they also get good medical conver, paid holidays etc etc For your information I think the possibility of cancer in the UK population as a whole is about 1 in 5, and amongst radaiton workers around 1 in 6.
The MP (who I saw on SKY News) was simply reacting to published medical evidence.
Because it's getting shallower amongst some communities apparently. There is a large rise in the numbers of children born with recessive genetic defects. Primarily, the cause is marriage between first cousins, especially when they come from isolated rural communites in places like Pakistan. The problem is most acute in places like West Yorkshire, and inner-city Birmingham. Some couples have brought disabled children into the world and gone on to do so again - despite warnings.
The number of still births to women of Asian origin is also climbing. In addition to the huge cost of all this to the NHS we are also talking about personal tragedies here which could be avoided by education and cultural change.
But, what is the best way of getting the message across, when many of the mothers concerned do not speak English?
I blame God. He started with only two people, how diverse is that ever going to be? ;)
percy toboggan
12-Feb-08, 18:01
I blame God. He started with only two people, how diverse is that ever going to be? ;)
Potential Presidential nominee Huckabee agrees with you, I understand. A creationist to his boots. Which I find a little unsettling.
As for jabbywocka - there's nothing impeccable, English or otherwise in my ancestry. I do believe I'm related to one of your last religious martyrs in some distant way but we all have a cross to bear.
I'm assuming you're a Scot.
This thread has prompted debate which is good. Intelligence shines through on the 'org' . I have contacted Phil Woolas to congratulate him on his courage in speaking out about this matter. We must not be cowed by the niceties of post Thatcher convention.
I blame God. He started with only two people, how diverse is that ever going to be? ;)
And even more puzzling is that there is no mention of a Mrs Cain.....:eek:
I'm sorry, but 30 seconds of Googling and thinking will lead inevitably to the conclusion that this is just another (Labour) MP who's consumed with wanting to ban things - a bansturbator, in other words. The media, of course, love to punch Percy's buttons - amongst others.
Pakistanis have been marrying first cousins forever. There may be an extended risk where there've been several intermarriages in a single family, but the risk is very low, as borne out by the The Wellcome Foundation (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020975.html).
There's a 4% risk - 1 in 25 pregnancies - they say, that a child born to a related couple may, perhaps, have some genetic issue - ranging from so minor it can't be detected, to severe, presumably. Source: Wellcome.
But a similar and only slightly smaller risk occurs in all parents; if you want to ban first cousin marriage and offspring you need to look at genetic testing for ALL parents, even, perish the thought, if they're truck drivers in England of impeccable English stock!
Those figures are for a one off 1st cousin marriage. If that family tree remains a family shrub and marriages continue the statistics are very different. If each parent is a carrier of a recessive gene (which can happen with continued intermarriage) the risk increases to 25%
"The identification of a recessive disorder in a child has reproductive implications for the parents, who, as unaffected carriers each carrying a single copy of the mutation, have a one in four risk of having further affected children [my bold]. It also has particular genetic implications for families in which consanguineous marriage is preferred, as it raises the possibility that other members of the families are unaffected carriers, who risk having affected children themselves if marriages have taken place or are planned between them." The Wellcome Foundation (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020975.html).
Margaret M.
13-Feb-08, 17:51
Potential Presidential nominee Huckabee agrees with you, I understand. A creationist to his boots. Which I find a little unsettling.
No need to worry, he has about as much chance of being President as I do.
orkneylass
13-Feb-08, 19:54
All this concern about a relatively low risk when in our culture, fetal alcohol syndrome is becoming a greater and greater problem. Many children are born with disabilities and health problems because of lifestyle choices made by their mothers Alcohol, drugs, poor diet, STDs etc) - this is probably far rarer amongst muslims than nonmuslims.
And even more puzzling is that there is no mention of a Mrs Cain.....:eek:
Maybe the other wife was "Able" enough for two!! Nudge, nudge, say no more, a nod's as good as a wink.... ;)
Potential Presidential nominee Huckabee agrees with you, I understand. A creationist to his boots
Oh, I doubt there is very much that he would agree with me about. I am an atheist and love the source of humour that religion provides. That is not everyone's taste but it would be a strange world if we were all the same.
I've heard that the Garden of Eden was in Caithness.
I've heard that the Garden of Eden was in Caithness.Is that why the englanders are making a pilgrimage here.
Is that why the englanders are making a pilgrimage here.
they can move all they like
but they will always be "" Incomers "" along with people that have been cast as Atomics for many years
NOTE from Moderators: It has been determined that a term originally used in this post, and quoted in a subsequent one, is not acceptable on these forums. The posts have had that term replaced with 'incomers'.
Metalattakk
14-Feb-08, 02:17
they can move all they like
but they will always be "" Incomers "" along with people that have been cast as Atomics for many years
I think I'll have to nominate that for the "Prince Charles Comment Of The Week" award.
Congrats. You have a fair chance of winning, I think. ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.