by Iram Ramzan, UnHerd
The NHS has once again found itself defending the indefensible. This time, training offered to midwives appears to minimise the risks posed to children born from parents who are close relatives. The documents claim 85-90% of cousin couples “do not have affected children”, adding that “the associated genetic risks have been exaggerated”. Staff are warned, meanwhile, that “close relative marriage is often stigmatised in England”. The guidance even seems to extol the “benefits” of such unions, stating: “marriage within the family can provide financial and social security at the individual, family and wider kinship levels”.
One might reasonably ask why the NHS is listing any “benefits” of consanguineous marriages, rather than doing what a health service is supposed to do — explaining the science and assessing the risks. Cousin marriages should be stigmatised, and UK institutions must not tiptoe around the subject in the name of cultural sensitivity.
This practice has largely been imported from Pakistan, where around 50% of people marry their first cousins — the highest rate in the world. While proponents argue that it brings families closer, I’ve witnessed the harms of consanguineous marriage among my own relatives and wider community. These unions guarantee that wealth and property stay in the family, as well as allowing people to bring over a relative to the UK under a spousal visa. The bigger problem arises when generation after generation continues marrying cousins, which leads to severe illnesses.
Babies from first-cousin marriages can be born with blindness, deafness, blood disorders, heart or kidney failure, lung and liver problems, and complex neurological disorders — all of which may require long, complex and costly treatment. Framing these risks as exaggerated is not compassionate but reckless.