JEDDAH — Couples who are at risk of having unhealthy children may not be able to marry following a recommendation made by the Human Rights Commission (HRC). (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/darticlen.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2008/April/middleeast_April21.xml&section=middleeast&col=)

According to the HRC, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz approved a recommendation last week requiring mazoons (marriage registrars) not to wed couples at probable risk of producing unhealthy children.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An excellent move

could they wed them and erm..sterilise them? and put on top of the list allowing them to adopt. i think that's a cruel move. they still have a right to a happy married life.

Weird move.

JEDDAH — Couples who are at risk of having unhealthy children may not be able to marry following a recommendation made by the Human Rights Commission (HRC). (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/darticlen.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2008/April/middleeast_April21.xml&section=middleeast&col=)

According to the HRC, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz approved a recommendation last week requiring mazoons (marriage registrars) not to wed couples at probable risk of producing unhealthy children.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An excellent move


I'm surprised to hear you say that. How does this fit into the idea that "we all need a marriage partner that will make us happy" idea? :think:

It's a stupid and cruel move, I don't think they have the right to do that! They can get married and not have kids. Every1 has the right to marry who they want.

Isn't this a violation of their human rights - you know the same one that God gave us to marry - several times if possible ?

hitler raises his little head in a totally different country.

On an related topic, Saudi Arabia has a HUMAN RIGHT's COMMISSION ?

! ! ! ! !

i think with so many advances in modern science, maybe they could avail themselves of donor sperm/eggs, and still have a healthy child.

Don't think they will go there though due to tribal traditions and the culture. For me if they cannot have children but love each other should have the right to marry.

i think the first move should be not to allow first cousin marriage if there is a high risk, or to allow them to marry but encourage them to adopt, make them see that the risk of having a severely disabled child and what else goes with it.

Encourging to adopt is noble but again in that culture I don't think it is looked upon as the norm as in say the USA.

On an related topic, Saudi Arabia has a HUMAN RIGHT's COMMISSION ?

! ! ! ! !

On March 9, 2004, the government announced the establishment of a National Human Rights Commission, comprised mainly of government officials. In November members of the commission announced that they had visited prison facilities, and were preparing a report for the Interior Ministry. They were quoted in the Saudi media as saying that “in general conditions were good” but that the prisons were badly overcrowded and that approximately 80 percent of the inmate population was non-Saudi.

March 2004 also saw the arrest of thirteen reformers who attempted to circulate a petition calling for Saudi Arabia to become a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament. They also indicated their intent to establish a human rights group independent of the government. All but three were released within several weeks, evidently after agreeing to halt their public petition efforts.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/saudia9810.htm

They just have the right to tell the couple that there is a risk and everything

and the couple have to deiced if they want to get married and go throw the risk or not

i think having a child with full knowledge that the child is going to be severely disabled i'm talking about severe disabledness...hydrocephalus, muscular dystrophy, severe intellectual disability, (not just being deaf, a cleft palate which can be fixed, and disabilities which people can live with) is selfish. but it's also selfish denying people who are in love to be married. maybe they should be more open minded towards adoptions and egg/sperm donation. in england the highest rates of disabled children come from pakistani families who choose to marry within the family, thus increasing the rate of disability. sometimes families are not equipped to cope with such children, thus reducing the qualitity of life of these children a lot. then again, i know many children who are disabled and have a fantastic life, i teach an autistic child, i know kids with downs, cerebral palsy, deaf and blind children...and they all manage well and some of them will definitely have an independent life in the future. so it all depends on what kind of 'blood diseases' they have. some things can be lived with successfully.

That would be sad and from what I understood about handicaps and Saudia the two do not go hand in hand that there are issues about this particular population. A friend of mine who was originally from Saudi and was a classmate stated that though he knew having this view was not morally right the handicap are viewed almost like a burden.

I applaud the move but the move went to far - they should not be forbidden, merely warned, educated and they should raise awareness that they should not have kids without consulting modern science to ensure that their children are disease-free.

However, perhaps with this move, people will take it seriously not to allow themselves to want/or love somebody they can't end up with. Hence, less children suffering from severe illnesses will be brought into this world because of selfish reasons- knowing that from Sharia Law's perspective, abortion is forbidden for most cases.

On an related topic, Saudi Arabia has a HUMAN RIGHT's COMMISSION ?

! ! ! ! !Oman is the only country in Gulf not having a human rights office [there is something associated with the Min of Foreign Aff but its activities are never mentioned in the news and in fact it didn't affect the famous US state dept report]
Yemen has an entire Ministry dedicated to HR

Am not sure how relevant this news are in Gulf or in KSA : how many couples really get married for love or remain married even after knowing the woman is infertile or kids would be born sick ?

Free to throw stones at me :angel:

Stupid move. They should focus on awareness and education more!

Yes, I fully support the bold decision

How many of you know what is Cooley's anaemia? Without treatment the individual definitely dies way before he/she reach the 20 year mark, and with treatment they live a miserable life, regular blood transfusions, their spleen being removed, they get overloaded with iron & end up having myocarditis & heart failure

Then the selfish parents come requesting to be sent abroad for bone marrow transplantation which is not only very costly, but also not necessarily successful

The country has every right to cut that preventable economic burden & have a healthy new generation that will be useful to the nation as a whole

The danger that might be caused by having generations of kids with countless blood diseases is much more harmful to any society than the danger caused by breaking people's hearts!

Besides, this move would help in stoping the stupid traditions of marrying cousins and only cousins..
Inherited blood diseases are killing hundreds of people here in the gulf, specially in the interior regions of Oman, the UAE and KSA (Thalassemia, anemia and many other genetic blood disorders)

Such problems exists in GCC counries more than others because of the ignorant pre-Islamic tradition of marrying within the family or "class". Marrying within the same family leads to a lot of health problems and diseases.

Anyhow, I think if people insist on marrying without understanding the diseases that the children are going to suffer from, the parents should be sterilized and they can live as they wish.

For me, this is just as couples with HIV marrying and producing kids with HIV.

But if there was a choice of having such a rule and not having it, I will go with having it.

I think its a great idea. I know it sounds a little harsh but the culture here is different. Very few people marry for love and in most cases this law would only come into effect when cousins or relatives want to marry. As said by Hitman and others there is a huge problem here with chronic forms of anemia and children born with these diseases live painful and traumatic lives. These illnesses also cost the governments millions of dollars every year, money that would be better spent on other things ie education.

To say that simply educating ppl about the dangers would solve the problem is naive. Its been tried and it doesnt work. Bearing children is a very important aspect of married life so sterilisation would be a cruel and unusal punishment. By simply not allowing ppl who carry these genes to marry is a more logical and effective way to improve the health and standards in the country. The situation is escalating as more and more generations are in bred, with anemia related diseases to retardation to severe birth defects becoming more and more prevalent everyday. We are fortunate here in the Gulf that the govt provides FREE health care to all its citizens (something that even the most developed, wealthy nations in the world have not done) but these genetic anomolies are costing a fortune. And they can be avoided.

As far as I know the UAE does similar testing of cousins prior to marriage and if the genes are found, couples are strongly advised not to proceed. looks like Saudi is finally moving into the 21st Century.

The country has every right to cut that preventable economic burden & have a healthy new generation that will be useful to the nation as a whole

What about promoting awareness and encourage adoption [guardianship], leaving the choice to the individuals ?
Sorry for going out of the health issue, but it goes together with the social one .

What about promoting awareness and encourage adoption [guardianship], leaving the choice to the individuals ?
Sorry for going out of the health issue, but it goes together with the social one .

Youre talking about changing centuries of preconceived ideas. The change needs to happen now. The concept of adoption is very different than that in the West, its just not that easy. The individuals were given the info, educated about the risks and have chosen to carry on regardless. I dont think the Saudis had any choice. Look at it as the lesser of two evils

I know that, but you can't stay dinosaur all your life
My fear is, that this will be seen as another move to control people lives and that will take away further hope for change from Saudi people
Since now for example King Abdullah is doing lot of changes in order to clean Saudia image in preparation of the meeting with Christians/Catholics, he might do this as well
This would benefit religious practice too

in preparation of the meeting with Christians/Catholics,

That is something funny. :rolleyes:

This is not practical, the couple can get married without the authority even know about it. And also it can lead to adultery and birth of illegitimate children in addition to being unhealthy.

They need to find a better solution, beside that Allah gives the health so we can't assume that the children will be unhealthy forever.

I know that, but you can't stay dinosaur all your life
My fear is, that this will be seen as another move to control people lives and that will take away further hope for change from Saudi people
Since now for example King Abdullah is doing lot of changes in order to clean Saudia image in preparation of the meeting with Christians/Catholics, he might do this as well
This would benefit religious practice too

Well in the West there has been a law forbidding blood relatives from getting married for decades. If I remember my history correctly the law has been in place since the late 1800's for these exact reasons. Over the years the law has been relaxed and in some countries it is now allowed to marry your cousin although society frowns on it. Thats why in certain states in the US ppl must have blood tests done to ensure that they are not related. Christian churches and magistrates will not marry anyone who is related.The laws regarding cousins marrying were relaxed in the mid 1940's because so much "new" blood had been introduced into the gene pool. Sadly this is not the case in ME. After centuries of in breeding one would assume that its almost like marrying your sister. (genetically speaking) At least Saudi is just forbidding marriages between ppl who carry abnormal genes, in Europe and US its just forbidden. Saudi is just catching up to the rest of the world. And the situation here is far worse - inbreeding has been part of the culture for generations. :)

No can stop anyone from getting married and having kids.. thats just unethical.
Even people who are HIV + cannot be forbidden from having kids; simple medical practice ethics!!

Ahh in a perfect world we could worry about whats ethical or whats not. But the world is not perfect. In the US drug addicts, repeat offenders, welfare mothers are forced to be sterilised or take birth control. Land of the free, Land of the brave but hey dont misbehave or we'll snip you....... Ethical?

I don't think they have the right to do so. Only God knows if the children will be unhealthy or not. And yah it's against human rights.

Really? Which human rights would those be? What about my rights? the rights of my children? If ppl just willy nilly go around having seriously ill babies( when it canbe avoided) that puts my childrens right to free education, free healthcare, pension etc etc at risk.....

totally agree with them having a duty not to spread the diseases further. i think same family marriage should be outlawed to start with. but if two wanna get married, they should be allowed to do so as long as they don't have offspring. if they are so open minded to marry when being carriers, then they should also be more open minded and be ready to adopt.

Really? Which human rights would those be? What about my rights? the rights of my children? If ppl just willy nilly go around having seriously ill babies( when it canbe avoided) that puts my childrens right to free education, free healthcare, pension etc etc at risk.....

Your right is served. I think it should be optional. The couples go to the hospital and see if they will have unhealthy children or not if they got married then they have the choice to marry or not. It will be their responsibility. They shouldnt be prevented from marrying neither get married compulsary.

we are not talking about what you or my self want.. we are talking about the current law; no law can stop people from having kids; comon gays are getting married, and having babies lol!!

Still it should be optional. If parents can handle having unhealthy children then so be it.

source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=513524&in_page_id=1770)

Wards with more than their share of tragedy
By CHRIS BROOKE and DAVID DERBYSHIRE - More by this author »

Last updated at 00:04am on 11th February 2008

Comments

On the children's wards in Bradford Royal Infirmary the evidence is clear.

Day after day, paediatricians deal with many more genetic illnesses than almost any other inner-city general hospital in the country.

The infirmary has become a centre of excellence for such tragic health problems, not because of any specialist research or funding, but simply down to the huge caseload.

Scroll down for more...



Women in Birmingham, where a tenth of children born to cousins suffer serious disorders


Many medical experts believe the high number of first-cousin marriages in Bradford's Asian population is a significant factor in explaining the city's worrying child health problems.

Inbreeding is a problem because it whittles away the genetic diversity which helps keep people healthy.

Most worrying, it increases the risks of a recessive genetic disorder. Children inherit two copies of every gene - one from each parent.

To develop a recessive genetic disorder, a child must inherit two faulty genes.

Normally the chances of both parents having the same faulty gene variant is small and the diseases are rare.

But if the parents are closely related, it is much more likely that they will both have the same mutated gene.

And that puts their children at far greater risk of inheriting the disorder.

There are hundreds of different recessive genetic disorders - some which cause life-threatening illness.

They include sickle cell anaemia, haemophilia and growth hormone deficiency.

Dr Peter Corry, a paediatrician at Bradford Royal Infirmary, said "informal data collection" amongst his colleagues revealed they had dealt with 140 different autosomal recessive disorders (where both parents carry a mutated gene) in recent years.

Dr Corry said a typical health authority would see about 20 to 30 such disorders.

There has also been a marked increase in the number of neurodegenerative conditions (brain and spinal cord deterioration causing dysfunction and disability) in children in Bradford.

In 1986 there were eight cases and in 2005 there were 45. A "large majority" of the affected children were of Pakistani origin.

The "Born in Bradford" project, which began last year, hopes to track the lives of 10,000 babies to explain a clutch of worrying health statistics in a deprived city with the UK's highest proportion of Pakistanis in the population.

The city's infant mortality rate is twice the national average, while there are also high levels of diabetes and heart disease.

And the prevalence of infant childhood disability, such as hearing and sight problems, and cerebral palsy in children of Pakistani origin has been found to be up to ten times higher than in other ethnic groups.

One report on the launch of the Bradford health study said it was "suspected" but not proven that first-cousin marriage played a "significant role" in the grim health statistics.

In Bradford more than three quarters of all Pakistani marriages are believed to be between first cousins and many health studies appear to support a trend of serious health problems in this ethnic group.

A study by Bradford social services showed about five in 1,000 children of Pakistani origin suffered hearing problems compared with one in 1,000 from other racial groups.

But a spokesman for the Association of Bradford Deaf Asians said he believed cousin-to-cousin marriages were being used as a "blame tool" to avoid doing proper scientific research.

Bradford is not the only city where doctors are concerned about the medical problems caused by inbreeding.

Three years ago the Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimated that one in ten of all children born to first cousins died in childhood or suffered from a serious genetic disorder.



Who you can marry, and who you can't

While many might feel uneasy at the idea, marriage between cousins is legal in Britain - and was common until well into the 20th century.

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins, as were Charles Darwin and his wife Emma.

The practice made economic sense in earlier times - when it allowed the wealthy to keep their riches in the family. It was also practical at a time when many lived in small rural communities where the opportunities for meeting future partners was small.

It is estimated that around half of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins.

Under English law, marriage between close relatives is banned. A man may not marry his mother, sister, daughter, grandmother, granddaughter, niece or aunt, while a woman cannot marry her father, brother, son, grandfather, grandson, nephew or uncle.

Some marriages between non-blood relatives are also illegal. Until a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, a man could not marry his former mother-in-law. A woman cannot marry her daughter's ex-husband or her mother's first husband.

Despite all these restrictions on non-blood relatives, marriage between cousins is permitted by the State and Church in Britain - and most other countries. In fact, the only Western country where cousin marriage remains taboo is the U.S., where it is illegal in most states.

Still it should be optional. If parents can handle having unhealthy children then so be it.

But thats just the point. The parents arent handling it, the government is. It is the government who must bear the medical costs, it is the government and ALL the ppl of the country who are going to suffer when the population growth and dynamics is all messed up. Its not as simple as right and wrong. Of course its wrong to tell ppl who they can and cant marry but sometimes it has to be done.

But thats just the point. The parents arent handling it, the government is. It is the government who must bear the medical costs, it is the government and ALL the ppl of the country who are going to suffer when the population growth and dynamics is all messed up. Its not as simple as right and wrong. Of course its wrong to tell ppl who they can and cant marry but sometimes it has to be done.

That's why we have governments. To help their people and protect them and support them.

How sweet! How old are you El Rey? The problem out here is ppl have the mentality that the govt is responsible for them from "cradle to grave" Sweetie, NO ONE is responsible for your wellbeing and happiness except yourself. So if you want the govt to take care of everything (which they now do) then you have to be willing to give up some things. If you want complete freedom to do you what you want then perhaps you should go live in ....... ummm ummmm Geez where would you go? I dont think the Khaleejis really realise how good ya all have it. And to keep it that way ppl have to stop making sick babies....

has anybody read the article i posted. i think it's quite relevant.

agh why everybody is asking me about my age ? :mmhmm:

How sweet! How old are you El Rey? The problem out here is ppl have the mentality that the govt is responsible for them from "cradle to grave" Sweetie, NO ONE is responsible for your wellbeing and happiness except yourself. So if you want the govt to take care of everything (which they now do) then you have to be willing to give up some things. If you want complete freedom to do you what you want then perhaps you should go live in ....... ummm ummmm Geez where would you go? I dont think the Khaleejis really realise how good ya all have it. And to keep it that way ppl have to stop making sick babies....

How can they know if the kids will be healthy or not ? No one can predict this. And medicine is not 100% right.

Well with certain diseases I think modern medicine can fairly accurately predict what is going to happen.

has anybody read the article i posted. i think it's quite relevant.

Yup. Good article. Now imagine the scale of the problem in Saudi and other GCC countries where 1st cousins have been marrying each other for over 2000 years......