How _will_ we address this with policy? The same way we already do: meaning that we do not, and in fact are thrall to an army of lobbyists and interest groups who would have us believe this inequality is not just necessary but in fact morally redeemable.
Which is, in fact, already happening without genetic enhancement: the Olympics are a pretty much a display of peak human genetic fitness, and no one loses their mind about it.
What would be a problem: genetically enhanced humans reach some critical mass and decide to purge the non-enhanced ones à la Eugenics wars in Star Trek (purely hypothetical)
So is abortion. And, so we're clear, allowing or in any way approving of abortion as a doctor is a far more direct violation of the Hippocratic oath than this is.
> How do you address this with policy? The same way we should be addressing inequality right now.
You mean not at all ?
I've realized though that doctors and pharmaceutical industries don't need to do anything other than save sick patients to make us utterly dependent on genetic modifications. Genetic treatments do not transmit from parent to child. So every parent you treat, the children will need to be treated as well. In some cases all of them, in other cases the chances are simply increased a bit of needing the treatment, which isn't much of a difference.
Even that is ignoring what happens when actual improvements over normal humans become available as genetic treatments. 1% bigger brain ? There is quite a bit of studies that give the impression that on average brain size does correspond to intelligence, even if there are no guarantees in individual cases. It should be an easy change in the DNA to make it a few percent bigger.
So really there's a number of choices we can do:
1) genetic modification is only allowed to be used to cure the sick
This results in the whole population becoming dependent and hostage to genetic modification. Slowly at first. Then, when we learn how to optimize humans, very rapidly.
2) genetic modification is available for parents to create embryos
This actually results in slower dependence: diseases get eliminated, including in the gametes, and any treatment does not need to be repeated in children. Still, improvements will create a class based society.
3) genetic modification is free, and not optional, at least for certain ailments (like vaccines)
This would rapidly eliminate dependence on genetic modification and would be much more fair towards everyone.
How is that not enough of a reason? The argument is the government has to step in and make it routine from the start. The alternative is to allow the wealthy to literally write superiority into their genes.
That's a straight up violation of the Hippocratic oath and blackmail/racketeering combined. We should enforce it strictly, vigilantly, and put doctors who attempt to do this in jail away for a very long time.
I understand your main argument stems from affordability of the procedure and that's a valid concern, but keep in mind that current societies already ration health care, either by availability/wait times (UK?) or wealth (USA). You won't be able to prevent the wealthy from modifying their offspring anyway and the unfairness of having them do it vs 99% not being able to afford do is not enough of a reason to stop progress, not even close. The goal should be to make this procedure routine, as affordable as an ultrasound or a tooth extraction or a cancer screen.
How do you address this with policy? The same way we should be addressing inequality right now.
Let me posit this question to you: if genetic enhancement would be available to 100% of the population, would you still have ethics concerns?