The evaluation methodology shows… Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the midwife to balance the immediate needs of a client with the long-term imperative of improving midwifery practice through evidence-based methods. The pressure to provide immediate, high-quality care can sometimes overshadow the systematic processes needed for quality improvement and research. Furthermore, the ethical obligation to client confidentiality and informed consent becomes complex when considering the use of anonymized data for research or quality improvement initiatives. Navigating these competing demands requires careful judgment and adherence to professional standards. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves integrating the client’s immediate care needs with a proactive plan for data collection that aligns with established quality improvement protocols and ethical research guidelines. This means ensuring that any data collected for quality improvement or research purposes is done with explicit, informed consent from the client, respecting their autonomy and privacy. The midwife should clearly explain how their data might be used, the benefits of such initiatives for future clients, and their right to refuse participation without compromising their care. This approach directly supports the principles of evidence-based practice and continuous quality improvement mandated by professional bodies and ethical codes, ensuring that practice evolves based on sound data while upholding client rights. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves prioritizing immediate client care to the exclusion of any systematic data collection or reflection, thereby missing opportunities for quality improvement and research translation. This failure to engage in reflective practice and data gathering hinders the midwife’s ability to identify trends, assess the effectiveness of interventions, and contribute to the broader body of knowledge in out-of-hospital midwifery, potentially leading to stagnation in practice and a failure to meet professional development expectations. Another incorrect approach is to collect data without obtaining informed consent, even if the intention is for quality improvement or research. This violates fundamental ethical principles of autonomy and privacy, and potentially breaches data protection regulations. Such an action erodes trust between the midwife and the client, and could have serious professional repercussions. A third incorrect approach is to assume that all out-of-hospital birth data is automatically suitable for research or quality improvement without proper anonymization or ethical review. This overlooks the critical need for data security, confidentiality, and adherence to ethical review board requirements, which are essential for ensuring the integrity of research and the protection of participants. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes client well-being while simultaneously embedding a commitment to continuous learning and ethical practice. This involves: 1) Assessing the immediate clinical needs of the client. 2) Identifying opportunities for data collection that align with quality improvement goals and potential research questions, ensuring these are ethically sound and consent-based. 3) Consulting relevant professional guidelines and ethical codes for best practices in data handling, consent, and research. 4) Implementing a plan for data collection and analysis that respects client confidentiality and autonomy. 5) Reflecting on the findings to inform future practice and contribute to the evidence base.

The scenario presents a challenge for a midwife seeking advanced certification in Latin America. The core difficulty lies in navigating the diverse regulatory landscapes and specific requirements for advanced practice across different Latin American countries, while also ensuring their existing skills and experience are recognized and validated for the purpose of this specific proficiency verification. Careful judgment is required to identify the most direct and compliant pathway to achieve the desired certification. The best approach involves a thorough investigation into the specific eligibility criteria and purpose of the Advanced Latin American Out-of-Hospital Midwifery Proficiency Verification itself. This means directly consulting the official documentation, guidelines, or governing body responsible for this particular verification. Understanding the stated objectives of the verification (e.g., to standardize advanced skills, ensure competency in specific regional practices, or facilitate cross-border recognition) and the defined eligibility pathways (e.g., specific training, years of practice, prior certifications, or a combination) is paramount. This direct engagement ensures that the midwife’s efforts are aligned with the exact requirements, maximizing the chances of successful application and avoiding wasted time and resources on irrelevant pursuits. This approach is correct because it prioritizes adherence to the specific regulatory framework and guidelines governing the proficiency verification, which is the absolute priority. It directly addresses the purpose of the verification and the midwife’s eligibility within that defined scope. An incorrect approach would be to assume that a general advanced midwifery certification from one Latin American country automatically qualifies for this specific proficiency verification. This fails to acknowledge that each country, and indeed specific verification programs, may have unique standards and requirements. The regulatory framework for advanced midwifery proficiency is not monolithic across Latin America. This approach risks misinterpreting the purpose of the verification, which is likely designed to assess a specific set of advanced skills and knowledge relevant to the Latin American context, not just general advanced practice. Another incorrect approach would be to focus solely on accumulating additional general midwifery training without first confirming if such training aligns with the specific requirements of the Advanced Latin American Out-of-Hospital Midwifery Proficiency Verification. While continuous professional development is valuable, it may not directly contribute to meeting the specific eligibility criteria for this particular advanced verification. The purpose of the verification is to assess proficiency in a defined area, and generic training might not address those specific competencies. A further incorrect approach would be to rely on informal advice from colleagues or anecdotal evidence regarding eligibility. While peer experience can be helpful, it cannot substitute for official regulatory guidance. The purpose and eligibility for a formal proficiency verification are defined by the governing body, and informal advice may be outdated, inaccurate, or not applicable to the specific verification program in question. This bypasses the critical step of understanding the official regulatory framework. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with clearly identifying the specific goal (e.g., obtaining the Advanced Latin American Out-of-Hospital Midwifery Proficiency Verification). This is followed by a diligent search for and review of the official documentation and guidelines pertaining to that specific goal. The next step is to critically assess personal qualifications and experience against these defined requirements. If gaps exist, the professional should then research pathways to meet those specific requirements, prioritizing those that are officially recognized and directly relevant to the verification. This systematic approach ensures compliance with the regulatory framework and maximizes the likelihood of achieving the desired outcome efficiently and effectively.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent uncertainty in out-of-hospital births and the critical need to balance maternal autonomy with the safety of both mother and baby. The midwife must navigate potential complications without immediate access to advanced medical facilities, requiring a robust decision-making framework grounded in established protocols and ethical considerations specific to Latin American out-of-hospital midwifery. The pressure to act decisively while respecting the birthing person’s wishes, especially in a potentially emergent situation, demands careful judgment. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic assessment of the maternal and fetal well-being, coupled with a clear, pre-established protocol for escalation to hospital care when specific risk factors or deviations from normal labor progress are identified. This approach prioritizes evidence-based practice and adherence to national or regional midwifery guidelines, which are designed to ensure the highest standard of care within the out-of-hospital setting. It involves continuous monitoring, clear communication with the birthing family, and a proactive stance on recognizing and responding to potential complications, thereby upholding the ethical duty of beneficence and non-maleficence. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves delaying the decision to transfer to a hospital despite clear indicators of fetal distress, such as persistent bradycardia or meconium-stained amniotic fluid, based solely on the birthing person’s initial preference to remain at home. This fails to adequately address the midwife’s primary responsibility for the safety of the fetus and mother, potentially violating regulatory mandates that require timely intervention in emergencies and ethical principles of non-maleficence. Another incorrect approach is to proceed with an intervention that is outside the scope of standard out-of-hospital midwifery practice, such as attempting a complex maneuver without appropriate training or equipment, in an attempt to resolve a complication. This not only poses a direct risk to the patient but also contravenes regulatory frameworks that define the boundaries of practice for midwives and could lead to severe professional and legal repercussions. A further incorrect approach is to transfer the patient to a hospital without providing a clear and comprehensive handover of relevant clinical information to the receiving medical team. This breakdown in communication can lead to delayed or inappropriate care at the hospital, compromising patient safety and demonstrating a failure to uphold professional standards of collaborative care and patient advocacy. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough risk assessment, followed by continuous monitoring of maternal and fetal well-being. This framework should integrate established national or regional midwifery protocols for normal birth and clearly defined criteria for transfer of care. Open and honest communication with the birthing family about potential risks and benefits of different management strategies is paramount. When deviations from normal occur or when there is any doubt about the safety of continuing out-of-hospital care, the decision-making process must prioritize timely and efficient transfer to a higher level of care, ensuring a seamless handover of information. This structured approach ensures that care is both patient-centered and evidence-based, adhering to the highest ethical and regulatory standards.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common yet critical challenge in out-of-hospital midwifery: managing a sudden, severe fetal distress event where immediate transfer to a hospital is not feasible. The professional challenge lies in balancing the immediate need for intervention to preserve fetal life with the limitations of the out-of-hospital setting, the mother’s wishes, and the available resources. The midwife must make rapid, informed decisions under pressure, potentially impacting both maternal and fetal outcomes, while adhering to established protocols and ethical principles. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves initiating immediate, evidence-based interventions to stabilize the fetus while simultaneously activating emergency transport protocols and communicating clearly with the mother and any accompanying support persons. This approach prioritizes fetal well-being through direct action, such as maternal repositioning and oxygen administration, while ensuring that definitive care at a hospital is being arranged without delay. This aligns with the ethical principle of beneficence, aiming to do the most good for the fetus, and the principle of non-maleficence, by taking all reasonable steps to prevent harm. Regulatory frameworks in Latin America typically mandate that midwives act within their scope of practice but also require them to recognize limitations and initiate emergency referrals when necessary, ensuring continuity of care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves delaying the activation of emergency transport to first attempt more complex interventions that are beyond the scope of out-of-hospital care or are unlikely to yield rapid results. This fails to acknowledge the urgency of severe fetal distress and the critical time window for effective intervention. Ethically, this could be seen as a failure of due diligence and potentially violates the principle of non-maleficence by not pursuing the most direct path to life-saving care. Regulatory frameworks would likely deem this a breach of protocol for emergency management. Another incorrect approach is to proceed with standard antenatal care or to focus solely on maternal comfort without addressing the acute fetal distress. This ignores the immediate threat to fetal life and the midwife’s responsibility to act decisively in such emergencies. It represents a failure to recognize and respond appropriately to a critical obstetric event, potentially leading to irreversible fetal harm. This approach would be contrary to established midwifery standards of care and emergency obstetric protocols prevalent in Latin American jurisdictions. A further incorrect approach is to proceed with emergency interventions without clear communication or consent from the mother, or to proceed without initiating emergency transport. While acting decisively is crucial, respecting the mother’s autonomy and ensuring she is informed about the situation and the planned actions is paramount. Acting unilaterally without clear communication can lead to ethical breaches and potential legal ramifications, even if the intentions are good. Regulatory guidelines emphasize informed consent and collaborative decision-making, even in emergencies. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured decision-making framework that begins with rapid assessment of the fetal status. This should be followed by immediate implementation of first-line interventions within their scope of practice. Concurrently, the emergency medical services or hospital transfer system must be activated. Throughout this process, clear, calm, and continuous communication with the mother and her support system is essential, explaining the situation, the actions being taken, and the rationale behind them. This integrated approach ensures that immediate care is provided while simultaneously facilitating access to higher levels of care.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the sensitive nature of reproductive health decisions and the potential for differing cultural or personal beliefs regarding family planning. The midwife must navigate these complexities while upholding the client’s autonomy and ensuring access to accurate information and appropriate services within the established legal and ethical framework of Latin American healthcare. Careful judgment is required to balance respect for individual choices with professional responsibility. The best approach involves a comprehensive discussion with the client about all available family planning methods, including their efficacy, risks, and benefits, without imposing personal beliefs or biases. This approach prioritizes informed consent and client-centered care. It aligns with the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence, and respects the client’s right to make decisions about their reproductive health as enshrined in many Latin American legal frameworks that protect reproductive rights and access to information. This ensures the client can make a choice that best suits their individual circumstances, values, and health status. An approach that focuses solely on natural family planning methods, even if preferred by the midwife, fails to provide a complete range of options. This is ethically problematic as it limits the client’s autonomy by not presenting all medically sound choices and may violate regulations that mandate comprehensive reproductive health counseling. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the client’s concerns about side effects without adequately exploring them or offering alternative solutions. This demonstrates a lack of empathy and can erode trust, potentially leading the client to forgo any form of contraception, which could have negative reproductive health consequences. Ethically, it fails to address the client’s expressed needs and medically, it may not be the most beneficial course of action. Finally, an approach that pressures the client into a specific method based on perceived social or economic factors, rather than their informed choice, is a significant ethical and regulatory violation. This infringes upon the client’s autonomy and reproductive rights, and could be considered coercive, undermining the principles of patient-centered care and potentially contravening legal protections for reproductive freedom. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening to the client’s concerns and preferences. This is followed by providing unbiased, evidence-based information on all relevant family planning options. The professional then facilitates a discussion to help the client weigh the pros and cons of each method in relation to their personal circumstances, health history, and values. The final decision rests solely with the client, with the professional offering ongoing support and access to chosen services.

This scenario is professionally challenging because the candidate is facing a critical juncture in their professional development, where the effectiveness and ethical implications of their preparation choices directly impact their ability to provide safe and competent out-of-hospital midwifery care within the specific regulatory landscape of Latin America. The urgency of the upcoming proficiency verification demands a strategic approach that balances thoroughness with efficiency, while adhering to the ethical imperative of patient safety and professional accountability. Careful judgment is required to select preparation resources that are not only comprehensive but also aligned with the established standards and guidelines governing midwifery practice in the region. The best approach involves a structured, multi-faceted preparation strategy that prioritizes official regulatory body guidelines and recognized professional association resources. This includes dedicating significant time to reviewing the specific competencies and knowledge domains outlined by the Latin American Midwifery Council (LAMC) for out-of-hospital practice. Furthermore, engaging with case studies and simulation exercises that mirror the types of scenarios likely to be encountered in Latin American out-of-hospital settings, and actively seeking mentorship from experienced, LAMC-certified out-of-hospital midwives, forms a robust preparation plan. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the requirements of the proficiency verification by focusing on the official standards and practical application, ensuring the candidate is prepared according to the established benchmarks. Ethically, this aligns with the principle of beneficence by ensuring the candidate is adequately prepared to provide safe care, and with professional accountability by adhering to the regulatory framework. An incorrect approach would be to solely rely on informal online forums and anecdotal advice from peers who may not be fully conversant with the LAMC’s specific requirements or the nuances of Latin American out-of-hospital midwifery. This fails to meet the regulatory standard by not grounding preparation in official guidelines, potentially leading to gaps in knowledge or misinterpretations of best practices. Ethically, this could compromise patient safety due to inadequate preparation. Another incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on theoretical textbook knowledge without practical application or simulation. While foundational knowledge is crucial, the proficiency verification likely assesses practical skills and decision-making in real-world out-of-hospital contexts. This approach neglects the practical competencies mandated by the LAMC, potentially leaving the candidate unprepared for the applied nature of the verification. This is an ethical failure as it prioritizes theoretical understanding over the practical skills necessary for safe patient care. A further incorrect approach is to allocate minimal time to preparation, assuming prior experience is sufficient, and to only review materials immediately before the verification. This demonstrates a lack of professional diligence and respect for the importance of the verification process. It fails to meet the ethical obligation to be thoroughly prepared to practice and could lead to a superficial understanding of critical information, posing a risk to patients. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough understanding of the specific requirements and competencies outlined by the relevant regulatory body (LAMC in this case). This should be followed by an assessment of personal knowledge and skill gaps. The next step involves identifying and prioritizing preparation resources that are authoritative and directly relevant to the verification criteria. Finally, a realistic timeline should be established, incorporating regular review, practice, and feedback mechanisms, ensuring a comprehensive and ethically sound preparation for the proficiency verification.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between respecting cultural practices and ensuring the safety and well-being of both mother and infant, particularly within the context of out-of-hospital birth settings. The midwife must navigate deeply held community beliefs and traditions while adhering to professional standards of care and regulatory requirements for safe midwifery practice in Latin America. Careful judgment is required to balance cultural sensitivity with evidence-based practice and legal obligations. The best approach involves a collaborative and culturally sensitive process of informed consent and shared decision-making. This entails engaging in open dialogue with the expectant parents about their cultural beliefs and preferences regarding the birth, while also clearly explaining the midwife’s professional responsibilities, the potential risks and benefits associated with different practices, and the established protocols for ensuring maternal and neonatal safety. This approach prioritizes the autonomy of the parents, respects their cultural heritage, and upholds the midwife’s ethical and legal duty to provide safe and effective care. It aligns with principles of cultural safety, which mandate that healthcare providers actively work to create an environment where individuals from diverse backgrounds feel respected, understood, and safe. Regulatory frameworks in Latin America generally emphasize the importance of informed consent and the provision of care that is both culturally appropriate and evidence-based. An incorrect approach would be to dismiss the community’s traditional practices outright without thorough understanding or discussion, leading to a breakdown in trust and potentially alienating the family. This fails to uphold the principle of cultural safety and could result in the family seeking care outside of regulated channels, thereby increasing risks. Another incorrect approach would be to blindly adhere to traditional practices without critically evaluating their safety or potential impact on maternal and infant health, which would violate the midwife’s professional duty of care and regulatory obligations to provide evidence-based practice. This approach disregards the midwife’s responsibility to advocate for the safest possible outcomes. A third incorrect approach would be to proceed with care without fully understanding the family’s beliefs or explaining the rationale behind recommended practices, leading to misunderstandings and a lack of genuine informed consent. This undermines the continuity of care model, which relies on trust and clear communication. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening and a genuine effort to understand the cultural context and beliefs of the family. This should be followed by a clear and respectful explanation of professional standards, evidence-based practices, and potential risks and benefits. The process should be iterative, allowing for questions, clarification, and collaborative decision-making that respects both cultural values and the imperative of safe midwifery care.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the need for consistent, high-quality midwifery care with the practical realities of professional development and resource allocation. Determining appropriate blueprint weighting and scoring, especially when considering retake policies, directly impacts the perceived fairness and validity of the Advanced Latin American Out-of-Hospital Midwifery Proficiency Verification. Midwives must uphold the highest standards of patient safety and competence, while also ensuring the assessment process is equitable and conducive to professional growth. Careful judgment is required to ensure the weighting reflects the critical nature of skills and knowledge, and that retake policies are supportive rather than punitive, aligning with ethical principles of professional accountability and continuous learning. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a transparent and evidence-based approach to blueprint weighting and scoring, directly linked to the core competencies and critical skills essential for safe and effective out-of-hospital midwifery in the Latin American context. This approach prioritizes weighting areas that have the most significant impact on patient outcomes and safety, such as emergency management and clinical decision-making. Scoring should be objective and clearly defined, with a retake policy that focuses on remediation and further learning rather than simple repetition. This aligns with the ethical imperative to ensure all certified midwives possess the necessary skills to protect maternal and infant health, and supports professional development by providing clear pathways for improvement. The weighting and scoring should be regularly reviewed and updated based on evolving best practices and local epidemiological data, ensuring the assessment remains relevant and effective. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves arbitrarily assigning weights to different sections of the blueprint without a clear rationale tied to clinical impact or patient safety. This can lead to an assessment that does not accurately reflect the skills most crucial for out-of-hospital midwifery, potentially allowing candidates to pass without demonstrating proficiency in critical areas. A retake policy that is overly lenient, allowing multiple retakes without requiring demonstrated improvement or targeted remediation, fails to uphold the standard of proficiency necessary for patient safety and undermines the credibility of the certification. Another unacceptable approach is to create a scoring system that is overly subjective or relies heavily on qualitative assessments without clear, measurable criteria. This introduces bias and reduces the reliability of the verification process. A retake policy that imposes excessive financial penalties or lengthy waiting periods without offering support for learning can be ethically problematic, creating barriers to professional practice for otherwise competent individuals and potentially discouraging participation in the certification process. A further flawed approach is to set a passing score that is either too low, failing to ensure a sufficient level of competence, or excessively high, making the certification unattainable for a significant portion of qualified practitioners. This can lead to a shortage of certified midwives or a certification that does not accurately reflect real-world proficiency. A retake policy that does not clearly outline the steps for improvement or the specific areas requiring further study makes the process opaque and can lead to frustration and disengagement. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with defining the core competencies and critical skills required for advanced Latin American out-of-hospital midwifery. This involves consulting with experienced practitioners, reviewing relevant professional guidelines, and considering local health needs and challenges. The blueprint weighting and scoring should then be developed to directly measure these competencies, with a clear emphasis on patient safety and clinical effectiveness. Retake policies should be designed to be supportive, focusing on identifying areas for improvement and providing opportunities for remediation and further learning, thereby fostering a culture of continuous professional development and ensuring the highest standards of care.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent unpredictability of physiological processes during pregnancy and birth, coupled with the responsibility of providing care within a specific regulatory framework that prioritizes maternal and infant well-being. The midwife must navigate potential deviations from normal physiology while adhering to established protocols and ethical standards for out-of-hospital birth in Latin America. Careful judgment is required to distinguish between normal physiological adaptation and signs of potential complication, ensuring timely and appropriate intervention. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive assessment of the woman’s physiological status, considering both antenatal history and current intrapartum signs, and then applying evidence-based protocols for managing deviations from normal labor progression. This includes recognizing the subtle shifts in maternal and fetal well-being that may indicate a need for escalation of care or specific interventions. Adherence to established guidelines for out-of-hospital birth in Latin America, which often emphasize risk assessment, continuous monitoring, and clear pathways for transfer to higher levels of care, is paramount. This approach ensures that the midwife acts within their scope of practice, prioritizes safety, and upholds the ethical duty of care to both mother and baby. An incorrect approach would be to dismiss subtle changes in fetal heart rate patterns as normal variations without further investigation, potentially delaying recognition of fetal distress. This fails to meet the standard of care for vigilant intrapartum monitoring and could lead to adverse outcomes. Another incorrect approach would be to proceed with an intervention that is outside the scope of practice for an out-of-hospital setting without clear indication or established protocol, potentially causing harm or compromising the woman’s safety. Furthermore, delaying communication with a collaborating physician or failing to initiate transfer to a hospital when signs suggest a deviation from normal physiology, such as prolonged labor or signs of maternal exhaustion, represents a significant ethical and regulatory failure. This inaction directly contravenes the principles of timely risk management and patient safety mandated by regulatory bodies overseeing out-of-hospital midwifery. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough understanding of normal physiological parameters for each stage of pregnancy, labor, and the postpartum period. This framework should include continuous assessment of maternal vital signs, fetal well-being (heart rate, movement), labor progress (contractions, cervical change), and the woman’s subjective experience. Crucially, this framework must incorporate a clear understanding of the specific regulatory guidelines for out-of-hospital birth in Latin America, including defined thresholds for intervention and escalation of care. When deviations from normal are identified, the midwife should systematically evaluate the potential causes, consult relevant evidence-based protocols, and make a timely decision regarding management, which may include continued observation, specific interventions within their scope, or transfer of care.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires the midwife to navigate a complex interplay between the birthing person’s deeply held personal beliefs and the midwife’s professional responsibilities, which are guided by established ethical principles and potentially local health regulations concerning informed consent and autonomy. The challenge lies in ensuring that the birthing person’s decision-making is truly informed and free from coercion, while also respecting their right to choose their birth experience. Careful judgment is required to balance advocacy for the birthing person with the midwife’s duty of care. The best approach involves actively facilitating a comprehensive discussion where the midwife provides clear, unbiased information about all available options, including potential risks and benefits, and then respectfully supports the birthing person’s ultimate decision, even if it differs from the midwife’s personal recommendations. This approach is correct because it upholds the fundamental ethical principle of autonomy, ensuring the birthing person has the capacity and opportunity to make an informed choice about their care. It aligns with the principles of shared decision-making, where the midwife acts as a facilitator and educator, empowering the birthing person to be the primary decision-maker. This respects their right to self-determination and promotes trust in the midwife-client relationship. An approach that involves subtly guiding the birthing person towards a specific choice, even with the intention of ensuring a “safer” outcome, is ethically problematic. This can be perceived as undue influence or coercion, undermining the birthing person’s autonomy and the principle of informed consent. It shifts the decision-making power away from the individual and into the hands of the professional, which is contrary to ethical standards of care. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the birthing person’s concerns or preferences outright, stating that certain choices are not permissible without a thorough exploration of the reasons behind their preferences and the potential implications. This demonstrates a lack of respect for the birthing person’s values and can lead to a breakdown in trust and a feeling of disempowerment. It fails to engage in genuine shared decision-making. Finally, an approach that focuses solely on the midwife’s personal comfort or perceived best practice without adequately exploring the birthing person’s perspective and values is also unacceptable. While professional experience is valuable, it must be integrated into a process that prioritizes the birthing person’s individual circumstances, beliefs, and wishes. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening to understand the birthing person’s values, beliefs, and concerns. This is followed by providing comprehensive, evidence-based information about all relevant options, including potential risks, benefits, and alternatives, presented in a clear and understandable manner. The midwife should then explore the birthing person’s understanding of this information and their preferences, facilitating a dialogue to reach a mutually agreed-upon plan of care. This process emphasizes collaboration, respect for autonomy, and informed consent, ensuring the birthing person is empowered to make decisions that align with their personal values and circumstances.