Parkinson disease (PD) remains a progressive and incurable disease. Research over the past decade provides strong evidence of a detectible phase before the clinical diagnosis, known as the prodromal phase of PD (pPD). In this article, we review the debate about disclosure of risk of progression to PD and related disorders to individuals through the perspectives of the pillars of medical ethics: beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice. There is evidence that lifestyle modification may have positive effects on onset and progression of PD, providing justification of potential benefit. From a societal perspective, a diagnosis of pPD could allow targeted recruitment to disease-modifying trials. Regarding nonmaleficence, direct evidence that catastrophic reactions are scarce is largely derived from studies of monogenic conditions, which may not be generalizable. Diagnosis of PD can be traumatic, and appropriate communication and evaluation of circumstances to weigh up disclosure is crucial. Future research should therefore examine the potential harms of early and of false-positive diagnoses and specifically examine these matters in diverse populations. Autonomy balances the right to know and the right not to know, so an individualized patient-centered approach and shared decision-making is essential, acknowledging that knowledge of being in the prodromal phase could prolong autonomy in the longer term. Distributive justice brings focus toward health care and related planning at the individual and societal level and affects the search for disease modification in PD. We must acknowledge that waiting for established disease states is likely to be too little, too late and results in failures of expensive trials and wasted participant and researcher effort. Ultimately, clinicians must arrive at a decision with the patient that solicits and integrates patients' goals, taking into account their individual life circumstances, perspectives, and philosophies, recognizing that one size cannot fit all.