While you will always find stories of people who've overcome great difficulties, there is no virtue in suffering for no reason, and when possible, we use medical interventions to prevent or avoid it. The success scenarios shouldn't imply that the state of suffering is itself desirable, even if it does sometimes lead to inspiring outcomes. There are plenty of examples of the opposite, with suicides providing a counterpoint at the extreme.

The way I see this, suffering is part of life, and isn't something we can entirely eliminate. When suffering happens, there are better and worse ways to handle it, and good can come from it. But most of cultural/societal evolution is focused on finding ways to reduce or avoid it, and that's a good thing. Obvious examples like improving food security and reducing the impact of previously debilitating illnesses come to mind. I personally grew up not knowing where the next meal would come from some days. That early experience influenced the person I am today. Poverty/starvation are still situations we should continue to try to solve.

So the question really becomes: what differentiates the standard ways we avoid unnecessary suffering from preemptive options that are on the horizon, if anything? i.e. if you have a bad knee, it makes sense to see someone and fix it. Given the choice, there's no reason to choose immobility. If an embryo has a high chance of developing lifelong congenital issues and a future parent has the option to choose an embryo that is significantly less likely to suffer the same fate, why not make that choice, especially if the affliction leads to high child mortality rates?

So yes, I think there is a presupposition that suffering should be avoided when possible (it is often not possible). And I think most of the world runs on this presupposition. This should not be conflated with believing that suffering is inherently "bad", nor should the possibility of positive outcomes lead one to believe that suffering is "good".