This episode is not just a story about an ideologically corrupted health care system; it is a story about the changing character of a nation.
This episode is not just a story about an ideologically corrupted health care system; it is a story about the changing character of a nation.
O n September 22, the Genomics Education Programme of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service published an article titled, “Should the UK government ban first-cousin marriage?” The answer to such a question should obviously be a firm “yes.” Yet the article takes a logically circuitous route to arrive at “no,” and even defends incest because condemnation might offend a supposed victim class.
Despite acknowledging that children born of a consanguineous marriage are at an increased risk of genetic conditions, the article summons the authority of the British Society for Genetic Medicine and suggests we shouldn’t be too critical of first-cousin marriages because doing so “stigmatises certain communities, undermines trust in medical services and causes couples to disengage from clinical support.” The article attempts to downplay the health consequences of inbreeding, writing that “in the general population, a child’s chance of being born with a genetic condition is around 2%–3%” and “this increases to 4%–6% in children of first cousins,” therefore “most children of first cousins are healthy.” Rather shockingly, the NHS says this doubling in risk is just a “small” increase.
Not only does the Genomics Education Programme dismiss the problems that emerge from first-cousin marriage, but it also suggests that the practice has “benefits,” such as “stronger extended family support systems and economic advantages (resources, property and inheritance can be consolidated rather than diluted across households).” Then, the article engages in whataboutism to argue that cousin marriage isn’t bad and shouldn’t be banned because things like smoking, alcohol, and assisted reproductive technologies may also increase the risk of certain conditions yet remain legal. Rather than “simply banning” consanguineous marriage, the article encourages “genetic counselling, awareness-raising initiatives and public health campaigns” to “help families make informed decisions without stigmatising certain communities and cultural traditions.” Of course, there is no such thing as a stigma-free society, and if the NHS is arguing that we should avoid stigmatizing incest, then we’re left guessing what practices the NHS believes are deserving of social shaming.
The British press drew attention to this article, sparking outrage. Member of Parliament Richard Holden told the Daily Mail that “our NHS should stop taking the knee to damaging and oppressive cultural practices,” and further added that consanguineous marriage “destroys integration, women’s rights and the health of those involved.” A spokesperson for NHS England defended the article on the flimsy grounds that it simply summarized existing literature and didn’t represent an official policy position: “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.”
But at some mysterious hour, the article was sent down the memory hole. The original webpage for the article is no longer functioning and now yields an “Error 404 — page not found” message. A search for the original title of the article on the Genomics Education Programme website produces a “no results were found” response. The full text remains accessible through third-party archives. (The NHS England did not respond to my request for comment.)
And so, the NHS has managed to put itself in an even more uncomfortable position. The NHS had defended the content as simply reciting the available research, but the article’s apparent online removal looks like an effective retraction, so we’re left thinking that either the data were wrong, or the data were correct but unpalatable. Both explanations undermine whatever credibility the NHS retained after the pandemic and its embrace of “gender-affirming care.” This debacle is yet another episode of progressives insisting that we must trust the science, except when the science threatens an anti-racist narrative peddled by elites.
Yet we’ve long known that purportedly scientific institutions abandon truth for the sake of a political agenda; what’s important is why the NHS even felt the impulse to address incest, let alone defend it. Even if the article had unreservedly warned against cousin marriage, we’d have to consider the following: Why is the NHS mentioning it at all? Of course, the reason why first-cousin marriage is now a discussion topic in England is the influx of South Asian and Muslim immigrants; although consanguineous marriages make up only about 3 percent of marriages nationally, a relatively recent study found that more than half — 55 percent — of British Pakistanis are married to a first cousin.
Importing the practice of first-cousin marriage — unlike a wave of new cuisine, clothing, or music — destroys the architecture underlying social organization, harms public welfare, strains health care services, and elicits disgust in native Westerners. Unfortunately for the fierce defenders of multiculturalism and seemingly unlimited immigration, the perceivable prevalence of incestuous relationships in certain insular demographic groups illuminates the ridiculousness of claims that “assimilation” is successful and widespread. If a slight majority of Pakistanis in England have rejected the West’s most basic tenets of social and family structure, then we’re tempted to conclude that they similarly fail to conform with other practices and norms. Are we meant to seduce ourselves into thinking that the same groups practicing intrafamily marriage are fully on-board with Western ideals of freedom, meritocracy, rule of law, the dignity of human life, and more?
This episode is not just a story about an ideologically corrupted health care system; it is a story about the changing character of a nation — for the worse. If shifting demographics prompt nationwide reconsideration of longstanding values, it is appropriate to ask whether those values are good, and if they are not, then it might make sense to discard them. But incest is rightly rejected on moral, ethical, and scientific grounds. Accordingly, the burden should not fall on England to accommodate alternative, dangerous lifestyles. Put more simply, a country shouldn’t assimilate toward an incoming culture bringing those practices. And if “diversity” pressures a country to abandon norms, customs, and values that are virtuous and healthy, then we’re left wondering whether “diversity” for its own sake is a worthy aim.