For our TBL, we learned that the United States does not allow sibling inbreeding due to the high risk of their offspring developing disorders. Yet, there are still 26 states that permit inbreeding between first cousins, and although they have a smaller risk, there are still rare, deleterious disorders that result because of it. Vici syndrome is an example of such disorder with classic symptoms of cardiomyopathy, agenesis of the corpus callosum, pulmonary hypoplasia, thyroid dysfunctions, hepatomegaly, and in the most severe cases, death of the infant (Byrne et al., 2016).
As we learned in physiology, our organs are like a team, and if one player is down, our mortality rate decreases. In this case, there are many organs in play that decreases mortality even more. Misdevelopment of the heart, brain, thyroid, and liver can lead to many physiological dysfunctions presenting with muscle weakness, shortness of breath, fatigue, increased glycogen stores, electrolyte imbalances, with many, many more additional complications that can be mentioned (Byrne et al., 2016).
I am hanging my hat on non-malfeasance when saying that there should be further inbreeding regulations. The risks are greater than any benefits that can come from inbreeding, especially for the life of the infant who may not have the best of life with all of the aforementioned health complications. What kind of life would that be for the infant? With inhibiting first cousin inbreeding, rates of Vici syndrome could decrease.
Resources:
Byrne, S., Dionisi-Vici, C., Gautel, M., Jungbluth, H., & Smith, L. (2016). Vici syndrome: a review. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. 11: 21. DOI: 10.1186/s13023-016-0399-x
Hi Christina,
ReplyDeleteThis is a touchy subject and I agree with you that there should be further inbreeding regulations. The biomedical ethic principle of non-malfeasance is a very strong argument. There is a deep history of inbreeding and time when marrying your first cousin was acceptable. So when did it all change? The first US prohibitions date back to the Civil War. This once favored practice started to decline during the second half of the 19th century(Paul & Spencer, 2008). Surprisingly, the reasons for this decline were not originally because of genetics and the risk of birth defects. Rather the reasons are thought to likely be due to improved transportation and communication, decline in family size, and greater female mobility and autonomy (Paul & Spencer, 2008).
References:
Paul, D. B., & Spencer, H. G. (2008). “It's Ok, We're Not Cousins by Blood”: The Cousin Marriage Controversy in Historical Perspective. PLoS Biology, 6(12). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060320
Hey Christina,
ReplyDeleteInbreeding in any context is generally very awkward to talk about due to differences in believes, cultures, religion and even in science (genetics). Even though the inbreeding coefficient is lower in first cousins, meaning there is a lower chance of mutations as compared to immediate family members like siblings and half siblings . There is still a lingering concern that what if every one starts inbreeding? and the effect it will have on society, population, genetics and so on.
I read in an article that "First cousin marriage can double risk of birth defects"(Chinthapalli,2013).This may not be popular opinion, but is it really worth it to put your future generation (children) at risk for a birth defect? Unless they decided not to have children. There are so many people in the world, so why should people choose to inbreed? I know every one is entitled to their own decisions, but sometimes these decisions do not make sense and that is my humble opinion
References:
Chinthapalli K. First cousin marriage can double risk of birth defects, finds study. BMJ. 2013 Jul 5;347:f4374. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4374. PMID: 23833083.