Is there any rational reason for laws against incest?

I'm not into incest, but I honestly do not understand why it is illegal and considered taboo. I first starting thinking about this topic when I noticed there is an organization named "Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network". I thought to myself that it was strange for them to include incest, which is not bad unless it is rape and/or abuse, in which case it would already be covered by the other words in their name. I looked on their website but didn't find any satisfactory answer. Their incest info page basically says "it's bad because it is abuse and child abuse". But it doesn't address why they put both Abuse and Incest in their name and there is no mention of consent. The entire site has no results for a search of "consensual incest".

I have brainstormed to think of possible reasons why the incest taboo exists. None of them stand up to logic and critical analysis.

Possible reason 1. It is rape

Not all rape is incest and not all incest is rape. If a person in an incestual* relationship is coercing or forcing the other person into sexual acts, this is already covered by rape. If a person commits sexual acts with someone under the age of consent, and they happen to be related to them, this is already covered by statutory rape.

Perhaps most incest is rape but this should not be used to blanketly dismiss all incest as rape. As an analogy, perhaps most herbal medicine is not effective but this does not mean that all herbal medicine is automatically ineffective. One should investigate each medicine's effectiveness on its own merits. The same applies to adult relationships. Some may be consenting and others may not.

* The spellchecker thinks this should be "instinctual".

Possible reason 2. Genetic defects in resultant children

I looked for conclusive evidence on rates of birth defects, etc. from incestuous relationships but there are few studies. One that I found said this:
"If the data are censored to exclude physical and mental abnormalities among the male and female parents, and major disparities with respect to young and advanced maternal age, few differences remain in the overall health outcomes recorded for each group."

So this isn't even necessarily true. Even if it is true though, it doesn't explain why procreating in an incestuous relationship is seen as so much more taboo than teenagers or older adults having children. Babies born to teenage mothers and mothers over 35 seem to be more prone to health risks, but these people are not criminalized for having reproductive sex. Teen sexual activity and teen pregnancy are somewhat stigmatized, but here is a thought exercise: How bad is someone made to feel if they have a child as a teen? Rate on a scale of 1 to 5 or something. Now consider how bad society would make them feel if they have an "incest baby". Worse, right? Additionally, people with genetic disorders are not legally prevented to not have children.

And here's a newsflash! NOT EVERY SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP INCLUDES REPRODUCTIVE SEX OR PLANS FOR BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN!!! Are there any laws that say "Okay, you can marry/have sex with your sibling but only if you're both the same gender, or you can prove that you aren't fertile."? I highly doubt it.

So that's reason #2 down the toilet.

Possible reason 3. Evolution favors non-incestual relationships/It's too awkward
Fetish advocate Raven Lightholme has trotted this argument out a couple of times: We evolved to not be attracted to people we grew up around, which was usually our relatives, so that is why people are not attracted to the people they grew up around, and that is why incest is awkward and taboo.
That's an obvious logical fallacy: Argument from evolution. "Evolution favors a certain path, therefore that path is automatically good and others are automatically bad." Let's examine this logic in a few different manifestations:

1. Evolution favors non-incestual relationships. Therefore incest is always bad and we should make it illegal and taboo.
2. Evolution favors the organism that has the most children. Therefore everyone should have as many children as possible, and anyone who is not constantly pregnant or trying to conceive shall be made a criminal and a pariah.
3. Evolution favors agent detection, so we should all believe in gods or conspiracies. Such belief shall be made mandatory by law.
4. Evolution favors those who have all senses and body parts fully functional, so it's now illegal to be blind, deaf, paralyzed, missing any body parts, etc.

See how irrational and stupid this argument is?

The other half of Raven's argument is that incestuous relationships are awkward. Sure, why not! Because we've all seen the massive amounts of surveys from people in incestual relationships, revealing that they all are awkward all of the time, and no other relationship is ever awkward! Here are some more awkward things that I guess are also illegal and frowned upon in Raven's universe:

• being called on to answer a question you don't know
• going to a party where you don't know anyone
• talking to extended family members
• explaining sex to your pubescent child
• a homeless person asking you for money
• moving to a new town
• job interviews
• asking someone on a date
• breaking up with a boyfriend/girlfriend

You get the idea.

I sent Raven a message in 2011 asking her to clarify her viewpoint. She has so far not responded.

Possible reason 4. Some people find it gross

This is the worst reason of all. I'll quote William T. Jarvis, Ph.D. from his essay "Why I am Not a Vegetarian": "Whether something is repugnant is highly individual. Hindus who will not eat animal foods readily drink their own urine for the sake of health. And what is repugnant-for example, chores such as changing a baby's diaper or caring for sick people-is not necessarily wrong."

No reasonable person supports banning homosexual relationships on the basis of some people being grossed out by the idea. Why should consensual incestual relationships be treated any different?

Possible reason 5. Against religion

"There appears to be no particular rationale for the subdivision of human populations into opposing forms of marriage preference, and even within the major religions there are quite marked differences in attitude to close kin marriage."

Plus, every religion has things that the members of that religion do which aren't enshrined in law! Jews don't lobby for non-kosher foods to be banned or for mandatory bar mitzvahs for every boy in the world/country! Such laws would never pass.

So yeah it makes absolutely no sense to me that society says all incest is always bad. It's as ridiculous as the notion that all chemicals in all amounts are bad, or that all pharmaceutical companies are evil, notions that no skeptic would support.

Media ridiculousness

Just a quick post highlighting some stuff that I saw today which made me laugh and also be annoyed.

Exhibit A: "Raw milk debate froths up at Capitol". Article by Tim Eaton. Austin American-Statesman, February 28th, 2013. Pages B1 and B3.

The article itself is all right, but one section was just bizarre: The second-to-last paragraph, which says "Margaret Errickson, 11, a home-school student from Houston, also testified, saying raw milk helps manage her eczema and allergies." What the hell is an eleven-year-old doing testifying in the legislature? She's probably not an expert on anything, especially the alleged medical benefits of unpasteurized milk. What's next, a six-year-old imploring BCBS to cover kisses from Mommy to treat knee boo-boos? An eight-year-old petitioning the police to start a "Monster Under The Bed Taskforce"? Ridiculous.

Exhibit B: "Natural Cures You Can Trust". Article by Jean Weiss. Prevention, August 2010. Pages 118-125.
Now this one is just terrible. You can tell it's going to be bad from the first sentence which starts off "As a forward-thinking woman who embraces safe and natural health strategies for you and your family..." Woah there. If you say "forward-thinking", doesn't that mean that you want the most up-to-date information on what works and what doesn't? I'm not implying that nothing natural can be good for you, but goddamn, I hate the appeal to nature. And it just gets worse from there.
"The proven therapies... can often replace prescription drugs. They're a safe adjunct (hence their "complementary" moniker to medication and other conventional treatment." GODDAMNIT! You cannot say they'll replace real medicine and then in the very next sentence claim that they are used with real medicine!!! The only sources the article cites are the NCCAM, various places with "Center for Integrative Medicine" in their name and the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. No mention of an actual study. Just the journal name. In fact the article mentions "new research", "recent research", "another new study", "intriguing new research", "fascinating new research", "a number of studies", and "some studies", but never really says anything about the studies. I guess in Jean Weiss's mind, there is no need to think about who does a study, how good the methodology is, or if the results are reproduced widely enough to generate scientific consensus. It seems quite common to just be like "Hey the news says that a study says this, therefore it's true!" I won't get into scrutinizing all of the article. I'll just wrap up this post with the part that drove me crazy the most:

One reason we know that rhodolia (Rhodolia rosea) works is because it's been used worldwide for centuries, especially in Russia, Scandinavia, and Iceland (it grows in extreme northern climates), to quell anxiety and strengthen mental stamina. Another is that the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine recently gave it a big thumbs-up.

First up, a one-two punch combo! Bam! Appeal to antiquity and popularity! Then finish 'em off with the appeal to a nonspecific authority! I actually kind of like this because I rarely see these fallacious arguments stated so bluntly: "We know that X works because it's been used for a long time by a lot of people." Oh and did you spot the "Hey, people that aren't native to your culture do this! It's new and exotic, so don't you want to be cool and try it?" implication? Man, Prevention magazine is crap.

CAM textbook chapter analysis, part 1

I am quite annoyed at chapter 44 in my Medical Assisting textbook. The chapter is "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" and is largely a bunch of credulous and vague fluff. There is very little in the chapter that is at all critical of CAM, and so the presence of this chapter is quite likely to give people reading it the impression that these are valid modes of treatment. This chapter has given me cause to question if the information in the other chapters is valid.

The book in question is "Medical Assisting: Administrative and Clinical Procedures Including Anatomy and Physiology" (Well, at least that is the title given inside the book. The cover title ends in "with Anatomy and Physiology" instead.) It is the fourth edition and the ISBN is 978-0-07-337454-3. In this post, and future posts as well, I'll be going through some of the claims this chapter makes and seeing whether they jibe with reality.

I will not intentionally misrepresent anything stated in the book. Quotes will be in quotation marks and in dark red text to distinguish them from my words.

The chapter starts by saying that "The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is on the rise.", and asserts that "More than one-third of the population older than the age of 18 uses some form of CAM to help them relieve problems and promote wellness." Absolutely no sources are given to support these statistics. These are also arguments from popularity.

The next paragraph tells us that CAM is treatments "that are not necessarily considered to be part of conventional medicine. Conventional medicine, also known as allopathy, is the common and usual practice of physicians and other allied health professionals...." (Emphasis in original text. Bolded words and phrases indicate "key terms".) Right away you can see that the authors have eschewed the more correct definition of alternative medicine, which is "all treatments that have not been proven effective using scientific methods". (Source: National Science Foundation) Additionally, they give undeserved legitimacy to the pejorative word "allopathy". To paraphrase Mike Hall (edit: actually I guess Tim Minchin said it first), if it's proven to work, it's medicine, and if it's not, it's not. You shouldn't get to use weasel words to imply that evidence based medicine is on the same level as made-up, unevidenced systems.

The chapter goes on to distinguish between complementary medicine ("used with conventional medicine") and alternative medicine ("used in place of conventional medicine"). I'm not sure whether this is actually a useful distinction, and the chapter largely lumps them together anyway.

"As therapies are proven to be safe and effective and are adopted into conventional health care, another type of medicine, called integrative medicine, has evolved." Hmm, I'm pretty sure that if something is proven safe and effective, it is just called medicine and you don't need to make up a new term for it just because it used to be unproven. Surely at some point in the past, chemotherapy was a new and unproven treatment, but what oncologist who offers chemotherapy would say that they practice "integrative medicine"? (Excepting, of course, those who also offer non-evidence-based modalities; for example Cancer Treatment Centers of America, who offer chiropractic, naturopathic, Reiki, and other nonscientific treatments along with scientific ones.)

Then there is a bullet point list of the similarities that all types of CAM share:

• A focus on individualized treatments, good nutrition, and preventive health practices
• Treatment of the whole person
• Promotion of self-care and self-healing
• Recognition of the spiritual nature of the individual

Ah, this shit. As if evidence-based medicine doesn't do any of these things. Ever been to a doctor and told them that the pills you were prescribed were making you sleepy, raising your blood pressure, altering your libido, or just plain not helping the problem they are supposed to? The doctor probably altered the dosage or switched you to a different medication. That's "individualized treatment". Has a doctor ever recommended that you try to eat healthier, get vaccinated, stop smoking, exercise, etc? That's "good nutrition, and preventive health practices".

The second point is something only claimed by alt med people to make real medicine sound bad. Why would treating the whole person be necessarily good? If you have a mental disorder, surely you only need to treat the brain? If you have a toenail fungus, surely you only need to treat the toenail? It's inefficient and usually unnecessary to treat the whole person. Some treatments do, and they usually have what are called "systemic side effects", meaning side effects that affect the body as a whole. You know how some chemo patients lose their hair, feel nauseous and fatigued, have weakened immune systems, etc? Those are systemic side effects. Treatments that are effective without systemic side effects are more valuable, of course, and there are now types of targeted chemotherapy.

When doctors advise you to get plenty of rest and exercise, that's self-care. Self-healing is what your immune system naturally does.

And that last point about recognizing spiritual shit... Spiritual is defined as

1. pertaining to the spirit or the soul
2. Of or pertaining to the God or a Church; sacred
3. Of or pertaining to spirits; supernatural

(Source: Wiktionary)

Of those things, only churches are something that can be proven to exist. I don't believe we should recognize anything that isn't proven to exist. And if the patient has needs pertaining to the church, then these needs are probably much better served by people in their church, rather than their healthcare provider.
However, there are probably many, many doctors who are spiritual and are sensitive to any "spiritual needs" of their patients. There is no reason that this can only be done by quackery peddlers.

The "introduction" part of the chapter concludes by stating that "CAM is constantly changing", "Research is ongoing", "what is considered to be CAM changes continually", etc., and then mentions that "The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) would be a good place to start looking for the latest research". Leaving aside the fast that NCCAM is clearly a biased source for info on CAM, there is no mention of any of the well-founded criticism of NCCAM, which is handily summarized in Kimball C. Atwood's 2003 article, The Ongoing Problem with the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. If I assume good faith on the part of the book's authors, perhaps I can imagine that they didn't want to derail the chapter by writing lengthy criticisms of government entities. But it seems that the intellectually honest thing to do would have been to research it, and if it appeared untrustworthy, then either not even mention it, or mention that it is untrustworthy. Sadly, it seems that the authors have done very little research or critical thinking when writing this chapter, but simply regurgitated the claims made by proponents of CAM without question.

This blog post has gone on for longer than I had anticipated, so I will continue my analysis of this chapter another day. If you have any polite comments, feel free to post them. Impolite comments will not be as welcome.