
It's All 'Relative'! Are Cousin Marriages Among British Pakistanis Causing Birth Defects?
The primary driver of this renewed debate is alarming statistics about the increased risk of genetic disorders in children born to consanguineous couples
The United Kingdom is currently witnessing in a vigorous debate regarding the legality and cultural implications of marriages between first cousins.
While such unions are not explicitly illegal in the UK, unlike in many other countries and some states in the US, they have come under intense scrutiny recently due to concerns over public health and social issues.
What studies show
The primary driver of this renewed debate is alarming statistics about the increased risk of genetic disorders in children born to consanguineous couples. Studies, notably the 'Born in Bradford" project, which has extensively researched childhood outcomes in a city with a significant British Pakistani population, have highlighted these risks.
For example, children of first cousin parents are found to have double the risk of serious birth defects or genetic conditions compared to those born to unrelated parents. While the overall risk for children of unrelated parents is around 2-3%, it rises to approximately 4-6% for children of first cousins. These conditions can include congenital heart problems, blood disorders like thalassaemia, and various metabolic or neurological conditions.
Some reports suggest that in certain areas, up to 30% of paediatric referrals are linked to issues arising from cousin marriages.
Despite these figures, it's important to note that the vast majority (94-96%) of children born to first cousins are healthy. However, the increased incidence of recessive genetic disorders, where both parents might unknowingly carry the same faulty gene, is a central concern for those advocating for a ban or increased awareness.
Reasons for this practice often include strengthening family bonds, preserving family wealth and property, maintaining cultural values, and ensuring a sense of familiarity and support for the bride within her new family. For many, it is seen as an ideal match that fosters close-knit communities.
Tory MP sparks debate
The debate in the UK Parliament, notably sparked by a Private Members' Bill proposed by Tory MP Richard Holden in late 2024, has been highly contentious. Proponents of a ban, like Holden, argue that the health risks alone warrant prohibition and suggest that the practice can also be linked to issues of freedom and control, implying potential connections to forced marriages or honour-based abuse, though critics dispute this conflation.
Opponents of a ban, including some community leaders and experts, argue that criminalising cousin marriage would be culturally insensitive and discriminatory, primarily targeting specific ethnic communities. They emphasise that a ban could stigmatise these groups, drive the practice underground, and deter individuals from seeking essential genetic counselling or healthcare services. Instead, they advocate for public health campaigns focused on education and awareness about genetic risks, coupled with accessible genetic screening and counselling services.
They also highlight that other factors, such as parental age, smoking, or alcohol consumption, can also increase the risk of birth defects, yet these are not subject to marriage bans. The nuanced discussion continues, balancing public health concerns with cultural sensitivities and individual reproductive rights.
(With agency inputs)
view comments
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Print
36 minutes ago
- The Print
Pakistan court suspends order seeking ban on 27 YouTubers ‘critical' of govt
A regional communication manager for YouTube did not respond to a Reuters request for a comment. Alphabet-owned YouTube this week told 27 content creators that it could block their channels – including those of journalists and Khan and his opposition party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf – if they failed to comply with a judicial magistrate court order seeking to ban them. Islamabad: A Pakistani court on Friday suspended an order seeking to ban the YouTube channels of more than two dozen critics of the government including former Prime Minister Imran Khan, a defence lawyer said. The judicial magistrate court in Islamabad had said it was seeking the ban after the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency criticised the channels in a June 2 report for 'sharing highly intimidating, provocative and derogatory contents against state institutions and officials of the state of Pakistan.' The decision to suspend the order was taken by an additional sessions judge, said Imaan Mazari, the lawyer for two of the YouTube content creators. In Pakistan, an additional sessions judge is a judicial officer who presides over a sessions court, handling both civil and criminal cases. 'Our submission is that the order has no legal basis. It was a one-sided decision without giving defence a chance to be heard,' Mazari said. She also said the magistrate court had no jurisdiction over the matter. The next hearing in the sessions court is on July 21. In Pakistan's judicial system, cases start at civil and judicial magistrate courts and appeals are heard in high courts and the Supreme Court. Digital rights campaigners say that any ban would further undermine free speech in Pakistan, where the authorities are accused of stifling newspapers and television, and social media is seen as one of the few outlets for dissent. Disclaimer: This report is auto generated from the Reuters news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content. Also Read: 'My only crime is reporting truth'—Pakistan bans 27 YouTube channels over 'anti-state content'


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Pakistan's political, military brass ordered hit at Pahalgam: Officials
File photo: Army jawans on alert in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack (Picture credit: PTI) NEW DELHI: The April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam that claimed the lives of 26 civilians was a conspiracy hatched by Pakistan's ISI and terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba on the directions of the country's political and military brass and executed exclusively by Pakistani terrorists , according to sources in the security establishment. In what sources described as an LeT-ISI project akin to the 26/11 Mumbai attack, ISI gave specific directions to Pakistan-based Lashkar commander Sajid Jutt to deploy only foreign terrorists operating in J&K. To ensure secrecy, no Kashmiri terrorist was taken on board. He was directed to ensure minimal local involvement on a "need-to-know" basis. The attack was led by Sulaiman, a suspected former Pakistani special forces commando who had participated in training at LeT's Muridke hub in Pakistan's Punjab before crossing the LoC into the Jammu region in 2022. Two other Pakistanis were also in the hit squad. Satellite phone analysis has revealed that Sulaiman's location on April 15 was in Tral forest, indicating he was in the vicinity of the attack site at Baisaran for almost a week before the incident. Sulaiman was also involved in the April 2023 attack on an Army truck in Poonch in which five soldiers were killed. However, he laid low for the next two years. Sources did not reveal the identities of the two other Pakistani terrorists. Although J&K Police had suspected the role of Pakistani terrorists Hashim Musa and Ali Bhai, probe has only confirmed Sulaiman's role till now. There is no corroboration of the role of local terrorist Adil Hussain Thoker as a facilitator, either. Even the two locals arrested by NIA last month - Parvaiz Ahmad Jothar and Bashir Ahmad Jothar, both from Pahalgam - are believed to have had a limited role, having provided the Pakistani terrorists food, shelter and other logistics in return for a few thousand rupees. They have also denied any knowledge of the terrorists' plan to hit tourists in Baisaran. There are currently about 68 foreign terrorists and three local terrorists active in the Valley.


India Gazette
2 hours ago
- India Gazette
Delhi: BJP holds meeting at party chief JP Nadda's residence ahead of Monsoon Session
New Delhi [India], July 14 (ANI): Union Home Minister Amit Shah reached Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) chief JP Nadda's residence on Monday, for a meeting ahead of the Monsoon Session of the Parliament. BJP's meeting was held at party president JP Nadda's residence in New Delhi. Many other BJP Union Ministers were also present at the meeting. The agenda of the meeting is not known yet. Meanwhile, the Chairperson of the Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP), Sonia Gandhi, has called a meeting of the Congress Parliamentary strategic group on July 15 to discuss the strategy for the Monsoon session of Parliament. The Monsoon Session of Parliament will be held from July 21 to August 21. There will be no Parliament sittings on August 13 and 14 due to Independence Day celebrations. Meanwhile, the Central government will convene an all-party meeting on July 19, ahead of the Monsoon Session 2025, said Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju earlier. Rijiju said, 'The central government called an all-party meeting on July 19 regarding the monsoon session of Parliament. The monsoon session of Parliament is starting from July 21 and will run till August 21.' There will be no Parliament sittings on August 13 and 14 due to Independence Day celebrations. Announcing the Monsoon Session, Rijiju wrote on X, 'The Hon'ble President of India has approved the proposal of the Government to convene the Monsoon Session of Parliament from 21st July to 21st August, 2025. In view of the Independence Day celebrations, there will be no sittings on the 13th and 14th of August.' The upcoming Monsoon session will be the first Parliament session following Operation Sindoor, which was launched by India on May 7 in response to a terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, which claimed 26 lives. (ANI)