The Holocaust and the racial hygiene doctrine that helped rationalize it still overshadow contemporary debates about using gene editing for disease prevention.

Law doesn’t always adequately address unauthorized uses of individuals’ DNA. Ethics can help establish legal privacy protections that work.

A physician may withhold information from a patient if he believes that he is acting in accordance with the patient’s wishes and best interests.

Professional society guidelines can be used to set standards for clinical practice instead of government. This approach could help if federal or state policymakers view discarding embryos as ethically equivalent to abortion.

Prognostic uncertainty about risk creates demand for ongoing communication and facilitated reflection about goals and values.

Clinically and ethically relevant questions are related to patient safety, therapeutic efficacy, equitable access, and global governance over humanity’s genetic legacy.

Gene editing reminds professionals and the public that this technology’s reach goes beyond treating somatic disease to germline consequences yet unknown.

Physicians should provide women considering abortion after Down syndrome screening with unbiased information and not attempt to influence their decision.

Dr Sean C. McConnell provides an introduction to gene editing, and Scott J. Schweikart discusses what prudent governance requires.

Noninvasive prenatal testing arguably constitutes a form of eugenics in a social context in which certain reproductive outcomes are not valued.