In their argument, Jain et al1 posit three questions, answer yes to all (as do we), and conclude the CF Foundation’s policy is, therefore, warranted. We conclude otherwise. Stopping with these three questions falls woefully short of an analysis sufficient to support the CF Foundation’s policy. Virtually every action in life carries some degree of risk for something. Yet we generally proceed—else we would never drive a car—by extending the risk analysis to include an assessment of likelihood, of steps that can be taken to reduce the risk, and the benefits to be gained by accepting the risk. Leaving out these steps may have produced a course of action Jain et al1 (and the CF Foundation) consider the most prudent, but it also yields the most simplistic, constricted, and damaging of the many options one might otherwise envision.