It's this simple, for example, if a combination of carrier vs. carrier is for some reason done [accident or professionally planned] and the result seems to be "dogs of merit", then since the test is available [and because we can] all progeny of interest are tested. Any affected dogs are written off of any breeding plan [ even if Obi Wan or Maxim ], carriers of interest matched ONLY with clear dogs, clears focused on. If a stud or dame of interest is a carrier, look at the closely matched sibs for a clear dog to use preferentially. Genetics will be extremely similar within recomb variation. See no real reduction in the pool due to selecting away from this known and specific issue.
Conversely, let's focus on DCM, which I assume even you recognize as a problem. To eliminate any links back to dogs with any rumor or diagnosed case of myopathy leaves very few if any lineage options, thanks to the mentallity of the last 20 to 30 years here in the US and in Europe. I know this because I and associates, many posting here, have and are spending hundreds of hours sifting pedigrees and cross checking any and all health information available, contacting owner/breeders, and scoring the data credibility. Internally we are arguing criteria for selection, some insisting that we eliminate any and all dogs with a hint of DCM, others being more moderate suggesting careful complimentation and "dilution". Myself, I want to pursue both avenues simultaneously, trying to create an ever cleaner pool and holding certain lines discrete. Why? Because here we agree. We can't focus on just one area and forget the others. The goal is not to have a bleeder, with bad conformation, weak character, but good cardio health. Or major faulted dog that lives to 17 years. The difference with DCM is we don't have a clear marker or path of improvement. Leaving a responsible course of action still largely a matter of debate and risk accessment. This is not the case with the, yes, less lethal but certainly undesirable heritable negative condition of vWd affected. It is possible, and in fact necessary, to prioritize and address all known issues [and you need to test to know in vWd] when making breeding selections. Easily correctable minor conformational issues can be dealt with later.
Not every dog needs or should be bred. Not every owner is capable, responsible or knowledgable enough to be breeding. Just because pups are cute and one "wants" to have a litter is not enough. This is why the human gene pool, with no logical fitness selection of mates and tendency for "accidental" procreation, is such a basic health mess. The idea of only "qualified, thoughtful" individuals breeding, if you consider it, also is somewhat gene pool limiting [unless open access to desired stock is possible]. However, I will point out that a smaller but healthier gene pool is infinitely better than large and polluted. Except that is to the people gleaning wealth from treating conditions by billable hour, and primarily commercially minded producers.
Gee, sorry for hurting your feelings.
I apologize. I have a degree in biochemistry from a top ten university for that ciriculum and grad degrees in toxicology/pharmcology. Unless you specialize I am probably deeper in these subjects. As a grad I have had to teach people in or heading to human medicine [and vet] and was astounded and then angered to discover that altho all could think well enough to want to be a professional, about half really weren't interested enough in the material vs. a class grade to be one. Of course that doesn't mean that they can't make the min standards and finally regurgitate enough to pass the boards. I find being capable of being a doctor on paper pretty much a dime a dozen affair. So I am not rotely impressed. Hence you find in medicine the same thing as in all "professions". 20% are very good, responsible artists, continually keeping current with their field. 50% are adequate, the low B and C students, watching the clock for their green time, pointing at the 20% to justify their self image and the image of the profession. 30% shouldn't be allowed to practice, but are sheltered by the professional organizations. If you are here, it is them that drive the outlandish malpractice insurance costs, merely passed to the public. I have little to no toleration anymore for the members of your arrogant, largely self serving profession. I say this because it is living things that are receiving this professional attention and the quality of their existence is in play. Over half of our household income is generated from correcting the orthopedic folly of licensed "doctors", and we are pretty darn successful at it. Why? Because we give a damn and think out of the box. And we don't loose interest when the clock reaches a certain position. But it continues to anger me that these people have been milked of their income, endured prolonged discomfort, and sometimes been made worse by so-called mainstream "doctors". Don't become one of those. I would much rather go back to balancing, conditioning, and training athletes and fighters. Much less heart wrenching, but there are much less of them than suffering clients. As far as justifying yourself to me....you damn sure do! You came into my world and I have been an advocate for the Dobermann longer than your punk ass has been on the planet and I will call you and anyone else to task for continuing to place them in jeopardy. Problem with that? Too bad! Don't like my manner.... sorry. It would be the same in person. [Those that have met me are grinning now]. I am tired of the time wasted having to carry or walk around the lazy minded. After awhile you realize you can't get that time back, it was stolen. After another 24 years you may be tired of that too, unless you've conformed and just joined the pack as most do.