Objective: To determine the current prevalence of consanguineous marriage in Western Australia, as a means of assessing the associated requirement for genetic counselling services. Subjects and Methods: The records of all intended marriages in Western Australia were examined over a 6-year period (1994–1999), with the numbers and types of consanguineous unions collated and analysed by year, current domicile and countries of origin. Results and Conclusions: Of the 62,549 proposed marriages, 144 (0.23%) were between couples who identified themselves as biological relatives, 82 (0.13%) of whom were first cousins. The mean coefficient of inbreeding α for the total sample was 0.00009. In 75.7% of cases either one or both of the partners had been born outside Australia. Given the patterns of recent migration to Australia, it is suggested that these figures should be treated as minimal estimates of the actual levels of consanguinity in the population.

Keywords:
Consanguineous marriage, Western Australia, Genetic counselling
1.
Darwin C: The Descent of Man. London, Murray, 1871, vol 2, p 403.
2.
Pearson K: Cousin marriages (letter). Br Med J 1908;i:1395.
3.
Bittles AH: The role and significance of consanguinity as a demographic variable. Pop Dev Rev 1994;20:561–584.
4.
Bratt CS: Incest statutes and the fundamental right of marriage: Is Oedipus free to marry? Family Law Q 1984;18:257–309.
5.
Imaizumi Y: A recent study of consanguineous marriages in Japan. Clin Genet 1986;30:230–233.
6.
Bittles AH: Empirical Estimates of the Prevalence of Consanguineous Marriage in Contemporary Societies, Working Paper No 74. Stanford, Morrison Institute for Population and Resource Studies, Stanford University, 1998.
7.
Zlotnik H: International migration 1965–96: An overview. Pop Dev Rev 1998;24:429–468.
8.
OECD: Trends in International Migration. Paris, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1999.
9.
Stevenson AC, Johnston HA, Stewart MIP, Golding DR: Congenital malformations: A report of a study of series of consecutive births in 24 centres. Bull World Health Org 1966;34(suppl):1–125.
10.
Kilpatrick SJ, Mathers JD, Stevenson AC: The importance of population fertility and consanguinity data being available in medico-social studies: Some data on consanguineous marriages in Northern Ireland. Ulst Med J 1955;24:113–122.
11.
Stevenson AC, Warnock HA: Observations on the results of pregnancies in women resident in Belfast. I. Data relating to all pregnancies ending in 1957. Ann Hum Genet 1959;23:382–391.
12.
Masterson JG: Consanguinity in Ireland. Hum Hered 1970;20:371–382.
13.
Coleman DA: A note on the frequency of consanguineous marriages in Reading, England, in 1972/1973. Hum Hered 1980;30:278–285.
14.
Freire-Maia N: Inbreeding levels in different countries. Eugen Q 1957;4:127–138.
15.
Sutter J, Goux M: L’évolution de la consanguinité en France de 1926 à 1958 avec des données récentes détaillés. Population 1964;17:683–702.
16.
de Costa C: Pregnancy outcomes in Lebanese-born women in Western Sydney. Med J Aust 1988;149:457–460.
17.
Khlat M: Consanguineous marriage and reproduction in Beirut, Lebanon. Am J Hum Genet 1988;43:188–196.
18.
Bittles AH, Neel JV: The costs of human inbreeding and their implications for variation at the DNA level. Nat Genet 1994;8:117–121.
19.
Australian Bureau of Statistics: Census of Australia, 1996. http://www.westernaustralia.net/fast_facts/index.shtml/#top
20.
Lebel RR: Consanguinity studies in Wisconsin. I. Secular trends in consanguineous marriages, 1843–1981. Am J Med Genet 1983;15:543–560.
21.
Bundey S, Alam H, Kaur A, Mir S, Lancashire RJ: Race, consanguinity and social features in Birmingham babies: A basis for a prospective study. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1990;44:130–135.
22.
Castilla EE, Gomez MA, Lopez-Camelo JS, Paz JE: Frequency of first-cousin marriages from civil marriage certificates in Argentina. Hum Biol 1991;63:203–210.
23.
Magnus P, Berg K, Bjerkedal T: Association of parental consanguinity with decreased birth weight and increased rate of early death and congenital malformations. Clin Genet 1985;28:335–342.
24.
Thomas JD, Doucette MA, Thomas DC, Stoeckle JD: Disease, lifestyle and consanguinity in 58 American gypsies. Lancet 1987;ii:377–370.
25.
Flynn M: Mortality, morbidity and marital features in the Irish Midlands. Ir Med J 1986;79:308–310.
26.
Darr A, Modell B: The frequency of consanguineous marriage among British Pakistanis. J Med Genet 1988;25:186–190.
27.
Reniers G: Post-Migration Survival of Traditional Marriage Patterns: Consanguineous Marriage among Turkish and Moroccan Immigrants in Belgium. Interuniversity Papers in Demography, PPD-1 Working Paper 1998–1. Gent, Department of Population Studies, University of Gent, 1998.
28.
Bittles AH: Consanguineous marriage and its outcomes in European populations; in Susanne C, Bodzsar E (eds): Population Genetics in Europe. Budapest, Eötvös Loránd University, 2000, pp 135–146.
29.
Port K, Mountain H, Nelson J, Bittles AH: A state-wide profile of couples seeking genetic counselling for consanguinity in Australia. Submitted for publication.
30.
Nelson J, Smith M, Bittles AH: Consanguineous marriage and its clinical consequences in migrants to Australia. Clin Genet 1996;52:142–146.
31.
Modell B, Kuliev AM: Social and Genetic Implications of Customary Consanguineous Marriage among British Pakistanis. London, Galton Institute Occasional Papers, 1992, Second Ser, No 4.
32.
Stoltenberg C, Magnus P, Lie RT, Daltveit AK, Irgens LM: Birth defects and parental consanguinity in Norway. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:439–448.
33.
Bittles AH: Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics. Clin Genet 2001;60:89–98.
© 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel
2001
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.