The counter argument, of course, is that other, more beneficial genetic information may be contained in otherwise non-optimal DNA sequences. Color blindness is genetic, and even dangerous for primitive Man who might eat a poison red berry mistakenly, but it's not fatal necessarily. If a color blind Neanderthal discovered fire and cooked his food and had a healthier family because of it, his intelligence/ingenuity was more valuable than the color blindness defect. A partial understanding of genetics leads people to believe that what THEY see as a hopelessly flawed DNA sequence (as expressed in an organism w/ one or more defects) has no value to the gene pool in general. Maybe such a defect is the precursor to a slightly tweaked evolution that boost immunity, metabolism, or any number of future things. Maybe it's just a pressure that helps other, unrelated mutations in later generations. The possibilities for any one mutation to be GOOD or BAD are too many to count, and too difficult to predict besides.
Without any judgment of the woman in TFA, perhaps she's got really great genes otherwise whose benefit more than makes up for a reproductive disorder. And, on top of that, perhaps the human evolutionary track is directed by more than just DNA now, and includes memes, culture, and macro scale things based on people and not DNA exclusively. Without being able to see the entire human race with resolution down the the individual A's, T's, C's and G's, you're wildly speculating at best, and being judgmental and self important at the worse.