Ultimately, the question on whether or not you should edit your child's genes needs to be a subjective one (unless someone can make a case for compulsive gene editing for certain defects, which I can't imagine).

I highly doubt that gene editing will ever be compulsive, but it will be interesting what society decides on whether it is ethical to edit an embryo's genome before it is birthed and given any say in the outcomes.

I'm predicting that the answer to that will depend on the disease, starting with "yes" for the most drastic genetic disorders for which there is no other option (screening, IVF, etc) for the parents. Slowly that may be expanded to more grey area cases (Severe schizophrenia, retardation, neurodegeneration), but there will always be pushback against genetics involving identity (race, depression, autism spectra, etc).

At the end of the day, Ruthie with to maintain her condition and make the most of her life, and that is most certainly her choice, but I would be surprised if changing that would be illegal, versus just a choice people may or may not make (analogous to aborting fetuses with Down's syndrome).

And of course there may be families who opt for "genetically superior" babies (hair / eye color, height, athletic ability, etc). But at the present, most of these are poorly understood at a genetic level and I highly doubt the FDA or any other government agency would accept the accompanying risk that comes with gene editing. So that would leave the black market for those parents, and as one scientist in my lab put it: how much does the average person trust an unlicensed Brazilian doctor to cure their cancer?