Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing patient autonomy and informed consent with the physician’s ethical obligation to provide the best possible care, especially when dealing with a potentially life-altering procedure. The patient’s expressed desire for a specific surgical outcome, coupled with her limited understanding of the risks and alternatives, creates a complex ethical and clinical dilemma. Careful judgment is required to ensure the patient’s decision is truly informed and aligned with her best interests, without being paternalistic. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive and iterative process of patient education and shared decision-making. This approach prioritizes understanding the patient’s values, concerns, and goals, while thoroughly explaining the diagnosis, the proposed surgical intervention, its potential benefits, risks, and significant alternatives, including non-surgical options and watchful waiting. It involves using clear, understandable language, assessing the patient’s comprehension, and allowing ample time for questions and reflection. This approach is ethically justified by the principles of patient autonomy and beneficence, ensuring that the patient can make a truly informed choice that aligns with her values and medical well-being. It also aligns with the ethical guidelines of medical practice that emphasize open communication and patient-centered care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves proceeding with the surgery based solely on the patient’s initial request without ensuring a deep understanding of the procedure’s implications. This fails to uphold the principle of informed consent, as the patient’s agreement may not be truly voluntary or informed if she does not grasp the full spectrum of risks, benefits, and alternatives. Ethically, this could be seen as a failure of beneficence and non-maleficence, as the physician might be performing a procedure that is not in the patient’s best interest or that she would not have chosen if fully informed. Another incorrect approach is to dismiss the patient’s request outright and unilaterally decide on a different course of action, such as only offering non-surgical management. This approach disregards patient autonomy and can be perceived as paternalistic. While the physician has a duty to advise, overriding a patient’s stated preference without thorough exploration and shared decision-making is ethically problematic and can erode the patient-physician relationship. A third incorrect approach is to provide a superficial overview of the procedure and its risks, assuming the patient’s understanding is sufficient. This falls short of the ethical requirement for adequate disclosure. The physician must actively assess comprehension and tailor the explanation to the individual patient’s needs and capacity to understand, rather than relying on a generic presentation. This failure to ensure comprehension undermines the validity of the informed consent process. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening to understand the patient’s perspective, values, and goals. This is followed by a thorough assessment of the clinical situation and the patient’s understanding. The next step involves transparent and comprehensive disclosure of all relevant information, presented in an accessible manner, and a continuous dialogue to address questions and concerns. The process culminates in a shared decision, where both patient and physician agree on the most appropriate course of action, respecting the patient’s autonomy while ensuring her well-being.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge related to understanding and adhering to the specific eligibility criteria for a specialized board certification. Misinterpreting or misapplying these criteria can lead to significant professional setbacks, including wasted application efforts, potential reputational damage, and delayed career progression. Careful judgment is required to accurately assess one’s qualifications against the stated requirements of the Comprehensive Latin American Female Pelvic Medicine Surgery Board Certification. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough and direct review of the official documentation outlining the purpose and eligibility requirements for the Comprehensive Latin American Female Pelvic Medicine Surgery Board Certification. This documentation, typically found on the certifying body’s official website or in their published guidelines, will explicitly detail the educational background, training, experience, and any other prerequisites necessary for application. Adhering to these stated requirements ensures that an applicant is pursuing certification in a manner that aligns with the established standards and intent of the program. This approach is correct because it is based on the definitive source of information, minimizing the risk of misinterpretation and ensuring compliance with the governing body’s regulations. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on anecdotal information from colleagues or mentors, without cross-referencing with official guidelines, represents a significant professional failure. While colleagues may offer valuable insights, their understanding might be outdated, incomplete, or based on personal interpretations, leading to misinformation. This approach risks misrepresenting one’s eligibility and failing to meet the precise standards set by the certifying body. Assuming that general medical board certification automatically confers eligibility for this specialized certification is another incorrect approach. Specialized board certifications often have distinct and rigorous requirements that go beyond general qualifications. Failing to verify these specific requirements means an applicant might proceed with an application that is fundamentally ineligible, wasting time and resources. Interpreting the purpose of the certification based on the perceived market demand or the number of practitioners in the field, rather than the official stated objectives, is also professionally unsound. The purpose of a board certification is defined by its creators and governing body, not by external market forces. This approach leads to a misunderstanding of the certification’s intent and its specific role in advancing the field, potentially leading to an applicant who does not align with the program’s core mission. Professional Reasoning: Professionals seeking specialized board certification should adopt a systematic approach. First, identify the official certifying body and locate their primary source of information regarding certification. Second, meticulously review all stated eligibility criteria, including educational prerequisites, required training duration and content, examination requirements, and any ethical or professional conduct standards. Third, if any aspect of the criteria is unclear, proactively seek clarification directly from the certifying body through their designated contact channels. Finally, ensure all application materials accurately reflect compliance with these verified requirements. This methodical process ensures informed decision-making and maximizes the likelihood of a successful and appropriate application.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires a surgeon to navigate the complex and often opaque policies surrounding board certification examinations, specifically concerning blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies. Misinterpreting or disregarding these policies can lead to significant professional setbacks, including delayed certification, financial penalties, and reputational damage. Careful judgment is required to ensure adherence to the established framework for assessment and certification. The best professional approach involves proactively seeking and thoroughly understanding the official examination blueprint and associated policies. This includes identifying the weighting of different content areas, the scoring methodology, and the precise conditions and limitations for retaking the examination. By consulting the official documentation provided by the certifying body, a candidate ensures they are operating with accurate information, allowing for targeted preparation and informed decision-making regarding their examination strategy. This aligns with the ethical obligation of candidates to engage with the certification process in good faith and to prepare diligently based on the established criteria. An incorrect approach involves relying on anecdotal information or outdated guidelines from colleagues or online forums regarding the examination’s structure and retake policies. This is professionally unacceptable because such information may be inaccurate, incomplete, or no longer applicable, leading to misdirected study efforts and potential disqualification if retake conditions are misunderstood. Another incorrect approach is to assume that the scoring or weighting will be intuitive or similar to other examinations the candidate has taken. This fails to acknowledge the unique design and specific regulations of this particular certification, potentially leading to a flawed preparation strategy and an inaccurate assessment of performance. Finally, an incorrect approach is to delay understanding the retake policy until after failing the examination. This demonstrates a lack of foresight and preparedness, potentially incurring additional costs and delaying career progression due to a lack of understanding of the established procedures for remediation. Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes direct engagement with official sources of information. This involves: 1) Identifying the certifying body and locating their official website and documentation. 2) Thoroughly reviewing the examination blueprint, syllabus, and candidate handbook, paying close attention to sections on content weighting, scoring, and examination retake policies. 3) Seeking clarification from the certifying body directly if any aspect of the policies remains unclear. 4) Developing a study plan that directly addresses the weighted content areas and understanding the implications of the scoring system. 5) Familiarizing oneself with the retake policy to understand the timeline, number of allowed attempts, and any associated requirements or fees.

The assessment process reveals a scenario that is professionally challenging due to the inherent risks associated with operative procedures, particularly in the delicate field of female pelvic medicine surgery. Ensuring patient safety requires meticulous attention to operative principles, appropriate instrumentation selection, and the safe application of energy devices. The challenge lies in balancing surgical efficacy with minimizing potential complications, demanding a high degree of clinical judgment and adherence to established best practices and ethical guidelines. The best approach involves a comprehensive pre-operative assessment and planning phase that prioritizes patient safety and informed consent. This includes a thorough review of the patient’s medical history, a detailed discussion of the proposed surgical procedure, potential risks, benefits, and alternatives, and the selection of instrumentation and energy devices that are appropriate for the specific procedure and the surgeon’s expertise. This approach aligns with the fundamental ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), as well as the regulatory requirement for informed consent and the provision of safe and effective medical care. It also reflects the professional obligation to stay current with best practices in surgical techniques and device utilization. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with the surgery without a detailed pre-operative assessment, relying solely on the surgeon’s experience without considering the specific nuances of the patient’s condition or the latest safety guidelines for energy devices. This fails to uphold the principle of beneficence and non-maleficence, as it increases the risk of unforeseen complications. It also neglects the ethical and regulatory imperative of informed consent, as the patient may not be fully aware of the specific risks associated with the chosen methods. Another incorrect approach would be to select instrumentation and energy devices based on availability or personal preference rather than their suitability for the specific surgical task and patient anatomy. This demonstrates a disregard for patient safety and could lead to suboptimal surgical outcomes or iatrogenic injury. It violates the professional duty to utilize resources prudently and effectively for the patient’s benefit. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to overlook the importance of post-operative monitoring and management, focusing solely on the operative phase. This neglects the continuous nature of patient care and the potential for delayed complications. It fails to adhere to the holistic approach to patient management required by ethical and regulatory standards, which extend beyond the operating room. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s condition and the proposed intervention. This framework should integrate ethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice) with regulatory requirements (informed consent, standard of care, device safety protocols). A systematic review of surgical literature, consultation with colleagues when necessary, and a commitment to continuous learning regarding instrumentation and energy device technology are crucial components of this process. The ultimate goal is to achieve the best possible patient outcome while minimizing risks.

The risk matrix shows a moderate likelihood of a rare but severe complication during a complex pelvic reconstructive surgery. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the surgeon to balance the potential benefits of the procedure against the significant risks to the patient, while also adhering to ethical principles of informed consent and patient autonomy. Careful judgment is required to ensure the patient’s well-being is prioritized and that all reasonable precautions are taken. The best professional approach involves a thorough pre-operative discussion with the patient, detailing the specific risks, including the rare but severe complication, its potential consequences, and the management strategies in place. This discussion should be documented meticulously, ensuring the patient provides informed consent based on a clear understanding of all aspects of the procedure. This aligns with the ethical imperative of patient autonomy and the regulatory requirement for comprehensive informed consent, ensuring the patient can make a truly voluntary decision about their care. An approach that downplays the severity or likelihood of the rare complication, or fails to adequately explain the management plan, is professionally unacceptable. This constitutes a failure in the duty to inform and can lead to a breach of informed consent, potentially violating ethical guidelines and regulatory standards that mandate full disclosure of risks. Similarly, proceeding with the surgery without a clear, documented plan for managing the specific rare complication, or without ensuring the surgical team is adequately prepared, demonstrates a lack of due diligence and a disregard for patient safety, which is a fundamental ethical and regulatory obligation. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive risk assessment. This assessment should inform a detailed discussion with the patient, focusing on shared decision-making. The framework should then guide the development of a robust management plan for potential complications, including contingency measures and team preparedness. Finally, meticulous documentation of all discussions and plans is crucial for accountability and patient safety.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a candidate to balance the need for comprehensive preparation with realistic time constraints and the potential for information overload. The pressure to perform well on a high-stakes certification exam, especially in a specialized field like Female Pelvic Medicine Surgery, necessitates a strategic approach to resource utilization. Misjudging the timeline or relying on suboptimal resources can lead to inadequate preparation, increased anxiety, and ultimately, exam failure, impacting the candidate’s career progression and patient care capabilities. Careful judgment is required to select resources that are current, relevant, and efficient for learning. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a structured, multi-modal preparation strategy that prioritizes foundational knowledge, incorporates practical application, and allows for iterative review. This includes dedicating specific blocks of time for studying core textbooks and foundational surgical principles, followed by engaging with up-to-date journal articles and clinical guidelines relevant to Latin American practice. Incorporating case-based learning and simulation exercises, if available, further solidifies understanding and practical skills. Finally, regular self-assessment through practice questions and mock exams helps identify knowledge gaps and refine exam technique. This approach is correct because it aligns with adult learning principles, ensuring both breadth and depth of knowledge acquisition, and addresses the practical realities of preparing for a specialized surgical board certification. It emphasizes a systematic progression from theory to application, mirroring the demands of clinical practice and the certification process. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on a single, comprehensive textbook without supplementing with current literature or practice-oriented resources is an inadequate approach. This fails to account for the rapid evolution of medical knowledge and surgical techniques, potentially leading to outdated information. It also neglects the importance of understanding regional variations in practice and resource availability, which are crucial for Latin American certification. Focusing exclusively on memorizing practice questions without understanding the underlying principles is another flawed strategy. While practice questions are valuable for assessment, they do not build a robust conceptual framework. This approach can lead to superficial knowledge, making it difficult to adapt to novel or slightly rephrased questions on the actual exam. It also fails to develop the critical thinking skills necessary for complex surgical decision-making. Adopting a last-minute, intensive cramming schedule without prior consistent study is highly ineffective. This method leads to burnout, poor retention, and increased anxiety. It does not allow for the deep processing and integration of complex information required for surgical board certification. This approach is antithetical to the sustained learning and skill development necessary for safe and effective surgical practice. Professional Reasoning: Professionals preparing for board certification should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough understanding of the examination blueprint and syllabus. This should be followed by an assessment of personal learning styles and existing knowledge gaps. Next, a realistic timeline should be established, breaking down the preparation into manageable phases. Resource selection should be guided by evidence-based recommendations, faculty input, and the currency of the material, prioritizing resources that offer both theoretical depth and practical relevance. Regular self-evaluation and adaptation of the study plan based on performance are crucial. Finally, maintaining physical and mental well-being throughout the preparation period is essential for optimal performance.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common yet complex ethical and professional challenge in female pelvic medicine surgery. The core difficulty lies in balancing a patient’s expressed desire for a specific, potentially unproven or investigational treatment with the surgeon’s ethical obligation to provide evidence-based, safe, and appropriate care. The patient’s desperation, coupled with the surgeon’s expertise and the limitations of current established treatments, creates a high-stakes decision-making environment requiring careful consideration of patient autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and professional integrity. The surgeon must navigate the potential for both significant benefit and harm, while also considering the resource implications and the broader ethical landscape of medical practice. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough, multi-faceted discussion with the patient that prioritizes informed consent and shared decision-making within the bounds of established ethical and regulatory guidelines. This approach begins with a comprehensive review of the patient’s condition, the limitations of current standard treatments, and the potential benefits and risks of the investigational procedure. It necessitates a frank discussion about the lack of robust scientific evidence supporting the proposed treatment, its experimental nature, and the potential for unknown complications or lack of efficacy. Crucially, this approach involves exploring all available standard-of-care options, even if the patient has found them unsatisfactory, to ensure she fully understands the alternatives. The surgeon must also assess the patient’s understanding of the information provided and her capacity to make an informed decision. If the investigational treatment is to be considered, it must be within a formal research protocol or a carefully documented compassionate use framework, adhering strictly to institutional review board (IRB) approval and any applicable regulatory requirements for experimental therapies. This ensures patient safety, data integrity, and ethical oversight. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding with the investigational treatment solely based on the patient’s strong desire, without a rigorous informed consent process that clearly outlines the experimental nature and lack of evidence, constitutes a significant ethical failure. This approach disregards the surgeon’s duty of non-maleficence by potentially exposing the patient to unproven risks without adequate understanding. It also undermines the principle of beneficence by prioritizing a patient’s wish over evidence-based care and potentially offering false hope. Agreeing to perform the investigational procedure as a “last resort” without exploring all available standard-of-care options, even if the patient expresses dissatisfaction with them, is also professionally unacceptable. This bypasses the surgeon’s obligation to exhaust all established and evidence-based treatments before considering experimental interventions. It risks neglecting potentially effective, albeit less ideal, treatments and can lead to a premature abandonment of proven therapies. Performing the investigational procedure without seeking appropriate institutional review board (IRB) approval or adhering to any applicable regulatory frameworks for experimental treatments is a direct violation of ethical and legal standards. This oversight bypasses essential safety checks, data collection protocols, and ethical oversight mechanisms designed to protect patients participating in experimental therapies. It exposes the patient to significant risk and undermines the integrity of medical research and practice. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s condition and her goals. This is followed by a thorough review of evidence-based treatment options, including their efficacy, risks, and benefits. When considering investigational or experimental treatments, the framework mandates a rigorous informed consent process, emphasizing the experimental nature, lack of definitive evidence, and potential risks. This process must be collaborative, ensuring the patient fully understands the implications and has the capacity to consent. Furthermore, adherence to institutional policies, ethical guidelines, and regulatory requirements, including seeking IRB approval for research or compassionate use, is paramount. The decision should always be guided by the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, ensuring patient safety and well-being are the primary considerations.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professionally challenging situation due to the inherent complexities of pelvic floor reconstructive surgery, which often involves multiple anatomical structures and potential for significant morbidity. The surgeon must balance the patient’s desire for optimal functional and aesthetic outcomes with the realistic risks and limitations of surgical intervention. Structured operative planning with robust risk mitigation is paramount to ensure patient safety, informed consent, and adherence to ethical surgical practice. The challenge lies in anticipating potential complications and having pre-defined strategies to address them, while also respecting the patient’s autonomy and the surgeon’s professional judgment. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary pre-operative assessment that includes detailed patient history, physical examination, and appropriate diagnostic imaging. This assessment should be followed by a structured operative plan that clearly outlines the primary surgical goals, anticipated steps, and specific strategies for managing identified risks. Crucially, this plan must be discussed thoroughly with the patient, ensuring they understand the potential benefits, risks, and alternatives, leading to truly informed consent. The ethical justification for this approach lies in the principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and respect for autonomy. Regulatory frameworks, such as those governing medical practice and patient rights, mandate thorough pre-operative evaluation and informed consent processes. This structured planning directly addresses the requirement for risk mitigation by proactively identifying and planning for potential complications. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: An approach that relies solely on intra-operative decision-making without a detailed pre-operative plan, even if the surgeon is experienced, fails to adequately mitigate risks. This can lead to suboptimal outcomes or unexpected complications that were not anticipated or discussed with the patient, potentially violating the principle of non-maleficence and undermining informed consent. Another incorrect approach would be to proceed with surgery based on a generalized plan without tailoring it to the specific patient’s anatomy and risk factors identified during the pre-operative assessment. This neglects the individualized nature of patient care and the importance of personalized risk assessment, potentially leading to complications that could have been foreseen and managed. Finally, an approach that prioritizes aggressive surgical intervention to achieve maximal correction without a thorough discussion of the associated risks and potential for complications, or without considering less invasive alternatives, would be ethically problematic. This could be seen as failing to respect patient autonomy and potentially violating the principle of non-maleficence if the risks outweigh the benefits for that specific patient. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic decision-making framework that begins with a thorough patient evaluation. This includes understanding the patient’s goals, medical history, and any contraindications. Following this, a detailed, individualized operative plan should be formulated, explicitly identifying potential risks and outlining mitigation strategies. The cornerstone of ethical and regulatory compliance is a comprehensive informed consent process, where all aspects of the plan, including risks, benefits, and alternatives, are clearly communicated and understood by the patient. This iterative process of assessment, planning, communication, and execution ensures patient safety and upholds professional standards.

The risk matrix shows a moderate likelihood of a rare but severe complication during a complex reconstructive pelvic floor surgery. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the patient’s desire for optimal functional and aesthetic outcomes with the inherent risks of a highly specialized procedure. The surgeon must make a critical judgment call regarding the timing and extent of surgical intervention, considering the patient’s overall health, the surgeon’s experience, and the availability of resources. Careful judgment is required to ensure patient safety while still offering a potentially life-altering procedure. The best approach involves a thorough pre-operative assessment and shared decision-making process. This includes a detailed discussion with the patient about the identified risks, the potential benefits, and alternative management strategies. The surgeon should clearly articulate the rationale for proceeding with the surgery, outlining specific measures to mitigate the identified risks, such as enhanced monitoring, specialized equipment, or the involvement of a multidisciplinary team. This approach prioritizes patient autonomy and informed consent, aligning with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, and adhering to professional guidelines that mandate clear communication of risks and benefits in complex surgical cases. Proceeding with the surgery without a comprehensive discussion of the moderate risk of a severe complication, assuming the patient understands the general risks of surgery, is ethically flawed. It fails to adequately inform the patient about the specific, identified risks highlighted by the risk matrix, thereby undermining the principle of informed consent. Delaying the surgery indefinitely due to the identified moderate risk, without exploring potential mitigation strategies or discussing the patient’s priorities and tolerance for risk, could be considered a failure of beneficence. It may prevent the patient from achieving a desired outcome that could significantly improve their quality of life, especially if the risk can be managed effectively. Opting for a less complex, potentially less effective procedure solely to avoid the identified moderate risk, without a thorough discussion with the patient about the trade-offs in terms of outcomes and their personal preferences, is also problematic. This approach may not align with the patient’s goals and could lead to suboptimal results, failing to fully address their needs. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive risk assessment, followed by open and honest communication with the patient. This involves clearly outlining identified risks and benefits, exploring alternative management options, and collaboratively determining the best course of action based on the patient’s values, preferences, and medical condition. The framework should also include a plan for risk mitigation and contingency planning should complications arise.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common yet complex challenge in female pelvic medicine surgery, involving a patient with a history of multiple pelvic surgeries and significant comorbidities. The professional challenge lies in balancing the patient’s desire for surgical intervention with the increased risks associated with her medical history and previous operative interventions. Careful judgment is required to accurately assess the risks and benefits, ensuring patient safety and informed consent are paramount. The surgeon must navigate the intricate anatomical landscape, which is likely distorted by scar tissue from prior procedures, and consider the physiological impact of her comorbidities on surgical outcomes and recovery. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a comprehensive, multidisciplinary pre-operative assessment and optimization strategy. This includes a thorough review of all previous surgical records, detailed imaging to delineate anatomical structures and identify potential adhesions, and consultation with relevant specialists (e.g., cardiology, anesthesiology, infectious disease) to manage her comorbidities. The goal is to optimize her physiological status to the greatest extent possible before surgery, thereby mitigating perioperative risks. This approach aligns with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, ensuring that all reasonable steps are taken to maximize the chance of a positive outcome while minimizing harm. It also upholds the principle of patient autonomy by providing a clear, evidence-based assessment of risks and benefits, allowing for truly informed consent. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding with surgery without a thorough pre-operative optimization and multidisciplinary consultation would be professionally unacceptable. This failure to adequately assess and manage her comorbidities and the complexities of her surgical history directly violates the principle of non-maleficence, as it exposes the patient to avoidable and potentially catastrophic risks. It also undermines informed consent, as the patient would not be fully aware of the heightened risks due to unaddressed medical issues. Opting for a less invasive procedure solely to avoid the perceived complexity of her surgical history, without a thorough evaluation of whether it would adequately address her condition, is also problematic. This approach prioritizes surgical expediency over optimal patient care and may lead to suboptimal outcomes or the need for further interventions, failing the principle of beneficence. Delaying surgery indefinitely without exploring all avenues for risk mitigation and patient optimization would also be ethically questionable. While caution is warranted, a complete refusal to consider surgical intervention when it might offer significant benefit, without a robust rationale based on unmanageable risk, could be seen as a failure to act in the patient’s best interest. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing similar situations should employ a systematic decision-making framework. This begins with a thorough understanding of the patient’s presenting condition and her specific anatomical and physiological challenges, informed by detailed history and physical examination. Next, a comprehensive risk assessment is crucial, considering both the surgical procedure itself and the patient’s individual risk factors, including comorbidities and prior surgical history. This assessment should be informed by evidence-based guidelines and expert consultation. The potential benefits of the intervention must be weighed against the identified risks. Finally, open and honest communication with the patient is essential to ensure shared decision-making and truly informed consent, allowing her to participate actively in the choice of the best course of action.