Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves a critical surgical skill where even minor deviations can lead to significant patient harm, including infection, poor wound healing, and visual impairment. The surgeon must balance the need for precision and efficiency with the imperative to maintain sterile technique and optimal tissue handling, all while operating under the specific guidelines of the Elite Indo-Pacific Ophthalmic Surgery Practice Qualification. The pressure to perform complex maneuvers in a delicate anatomical area necessitates a rigorous adherence to established best practices and a deep understanding of the underlying principles of surgical technique. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves meticulously performing each suture and knot with deliberate, controlled movements, ensuring adequate tissue apposition without excessive tension. This approach prioritizes the integrity of the tissue and the security of the closure, minimizing the risk of complications. Specifically, it entails using appropriate suture material and needle size for the tissue type, passing the needle smoothly through the tissue layers, and creating uniform, non-constricting knots. This aligns with the core tenets of ophthalmic surgery, emphasizing gentleness, precision, and the avoidance of unnecessary trauma, which are implicitly or explicitly mandated by the Elite Indo-Pacific Ophthalmic Surgery Practice Qualification’s standards for technical proficiency and patient safety. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Rushing the suturing process by performing rapid, imprecise movements and creating overly tight knots is professionally unacceptable. This haste can lead to tissue tearing, increased inflammation, and compromised wound healing, directly contravening the qualification’s emphasis on meticulous technique and patient well-being. Furthermore, it increases the risk of suture material cutting through the tissue, leading to dehiscence or other complications. Employing a technique that involves excessive manipulation of surrounding tissues to gain access or speed up the suturing, without regard for potential damage, is also professionally unsound. Such handling can cause iatrogenic injury, increase the risk of infection, and impede the natural healing process, failing to meet the qualification’s requirement for skilled and conservative tissue management. Failing to ensure that each knot is adequately secured but not excessively tight, leading to loose sutures or constrictive ties, demonstrates a lack of attention to detail critical for ophthalmic surgery. Loose sutures may not provide sufficient wound closure, increasing the risk of infection and dehiscence, while overly tight knots can cause ischemia and tissue necrosis, both of which are serious complications that violate the principles of safe surgical practice expected by the qualification. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach complex surgical tasks by first recalling and mentally rehearsing the established best practices for the specific procedure. This involves a systematic evaluation of each step, prioritizing patient safety and optimal outcomes. A critical self-assessment of technique, focusing on precision, gentleness, and adherence to sterile principles, is paramount. When faced with time pressure or challenging anatomical variations, the professional must resist the urge to compromise on technique, instead seeking to adapt their approach while maintaining the highest standards of care, as dictated by the Elite Indo-Pacific Ophthalmic Surgery Practice Qualification.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge related to understanding and applying the eligibility criteria for a specialized qualification. Misinterpreting or misrepresenting these criteria can lead to an applicant being unfairly rejected or, conversely, being admitted without meeting the required standards, potentially impacting patient safety and the integrity of the qualification. Careful judgment is required to accurately assess an individual’s qualifications against the stated requirements. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough and objective review of the applicant’s documented qualifications and experience against the explicit eligibility criteria for the Elite Indo-Pacific Ophthalmic Surgery Practice Qualification. This approach ensures that decisions are based on verifiable facts and adherence to the established standards set by the qualification body. The purpose of the qualification is to recognize ophthalmic surgeons who have demonstrated a high level of skill and experience within the Indo-Pacific region, and eligibility is strictly defined to maintain this standard. Therefore, a direct comparison of the applicant’s credentials against these defined criteria is the only appropriate method. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves making an assumption about the applicant’s eligibility based on their reputation or informal recommendations. This fails to adhere to the qualification’s purpose, which is to formally assess specific competencies and experience, not to rely on hearsay. It bypasses the structured evaluation process and introduces subjectivity, potentially overlooking critical requirements or admitting individuals who do not meet the objective standards. Another incorrect approach is to interpret the eligibility criteria loosely to accommodate an applicant who is otherwise highly regarded but may not precisely meet all stated requirements. This undermines the integrity of the qualification by diluting its standards. The purpose of defined eligibility is to ensure a consistent and fair assessment for all, and bending these rules for one individual compromises this principle and could lead to a perception of favoritism. A further incorrect approach is to focus solely on the applicant’s years of practice without considering the specific nature and scope of their ophthalmic surgery experience within the Indo-Pacific region, as stipulated by the qualification. The qualification is not merely about longevity in the field but about demonstrated expertise and practice within a defined geographical and professional context. Ignoring these specific elements of the eligibility criteria leads to an incomplete and potentially inaccurate assessment. Professional Reasoning: Professionals tasked with evaluating eligibility for specialized qualifications should adopt a systematic and evidence-based approach. This involves: 1) Clearly understanding the stated purpose and eligibility criteria of the qualification. 2) Requesting and meticulously reviewing all required documentation from the applicant. 3) Objectively comparing the applicant’s submitted evidence against each specific eligibility requirement. 4) Documenting the assessment process and the rationale for the decision. 5) Consulting with the qualification body or relevant guidelines if any ambiguity arises. This structured process ensures fairness, transparency, and upholds the standards of the qualification.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent risks associated with energy devices in ophthalmic surgery and the critical need to maintain patient safety and surgical integrity. The surgeon must balance the effective use of technology with rigorous adherence to safety protocols, especially when faced with potential equipment malfunction or suboptimal performance. Careful judgment is required to ensure that patient well-being is never compromised by haste or a failure to follow established best practices. The best professional practice involves a systematic and cautious approach to managing potential energy device issues during surgery. This includes immediately ceasing the use of the device upon suspicion of malfunction, thoroughly investigating the issue by consulting with the biomedical engineering department or manufacturer’s representative, and only resuming use after the device has been confirmed to be functioning correctly and safely. This approach prioritizes patient safety above all else, aligns with the ethical imperative to “do no harm,” and adheres to the principles of good clinical practice which mandate the use of safe and reliable equipment. Regulatory frameworks governing medical devices emphasize the importance of reporting and addressing malfunctions to prevent patient harm and ensure the integrity of surgical procedures. An incorrect approach would be to continue using the energy device without proper verification of its performance, even if the perceived issue is minor. This disregards the potential for escalating malfunction, which could lead to unintended tissue damage, increased operative time, or complications for the patient. Such an action violates the principle of patient safety and the ethical obligation to ensure that all medical equipment is in optimal working order. Furthermore, it fails to comply with regulatory guidelines that require prompt reporting and resolution of device malfunctions. Another incorrect approach is to attempt to troubleshoot or repair the energy device independently without involving qualified biomedical engineering personnel or manufacturer support. This can lead to improper repairs, further damage to the device, or the creation of new safety hazards. It bypasses established protocols for medical device maintenance and safety checks, potentially exposing the patient to unacceptable risks and contravening regulatory requirements for device servicing. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to dismiss the perceived issue as insignificant and proceed with the surgery without any further investigation or documentation. This demonstrates a lack of diligence and a failure to recognize the potential severity of even subtle equipment anomalies. It neglects the importance of a thorough pre-operative and intra-operative assessment of all surgical tools, which is a cornerstone of safe surgical practice and a requirement under most medical regulatory bodies. Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety, adheres strictly to established protocols for equipment management, and fosters open communication with support staff and relevant authorities. This involves a proactive mindset towards identifying and addressing potential risks, a commitment to continuous learning and adherence to best practices, and a willingness to pause and reassess the situation when any doubt arises regarding the safety or efficacy of surgical instruments.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a patient’s expressed wishes and the surgeon’s clinical judgment regarding the necessity and timing of a procedure. Navigating this requires a delicate balance of respecting patient autonomy, upholding professional standards of care, and ensuring patient safety, all within the ethical and legal framework governing ophthalmic surgery in the Indo-Pacific region. The surgeon must consider the potential for misinterpretation of the patient’s condition or motivations, and the long-term implications of either proceeding or delaying the surgery. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach that prioritizes patient understanding and informed consent while ensuring the surgical intervention is clinically justified and safe. This includes thoroughly re-evaluating the patient’s condition, engaging in a detailed discussion about the risks, benefits, and alternatives to surgery, and documenting this process meticulously. The surgeon should also explore the patient’s underlying concerns and motivations for wanting the surgery expedited, addressing any anxieties or misunderstandings. This approach aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and respect for patient autonomy, all of which are foundational in medical practice and are implicitly supported by professional guidelines in the Indo-Pacific region that emphasize patient-centered care and informed decision-making. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding with the surgery solely based on the patient’s insistence, without a thorough re-evaluation and clear understanding of the patient’s rationale and the clinical necessity, would be ethically and professionally unsound. This approach risks performing an unnecessary or premature procedure, potentially leading to complications or suboptimal outcomes, and undermines the principle of acting in the patient’s best interest. It also fails to adequately respect the surgeon’s professional responsibility to exercise clinical judgment. Delaying the surgery indefinitely without a clear plan or further assessment, despite the patient’s stated desire and potential clinical indicators, could be seen as neglecting the patient’s needs and potentially allowing a condition to worsen, which would be contrary to the principle of beneficence. It also fails to adequately address the patient’s expressed concerns. Focusing solely on the patient’s financial ability to pay as the primary determinant for proceeding or delaying the surgery is ethically unacceptable and potentially discriminatory. Medical decisions should be based on clinical need and patient well-being, not financial capacity, and such a focus would violate principles of equitable care. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a structured decision-making process that begins with a thorough assessment of the clinical situation and the patient’s presentation. This should be followed by open and honest communication, actively listening to the patient’s concerns and motivations. The professional must then weigh the clinical evidence against the patient’s wishes, considering all potential risks and benefits. Documentation of all assessments, discussions, and decisions is paramount. If a significant divergence exists between clinical judgment and patient preference, seeking a second opinion or involving a multidisciplinary team can be beneficial. The ultimate decision must be grounded in ethical principles and professional standards, ensuring patient safety and well-being are paramount.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent risks associated with subspecialty ophthalmic surgery, specifically the potential for severe complications like endophthalmitis. Managing such a complication requires immediate, expert intervention, adherence to established protocols, and clear communication with the patient and their family. The pressure to act swiftly while ensuring all necessary steps are taken, and that patient safety and informed consent are paramount, demands careful judgment and a robust understanding of both procedural knowledge and ethical obligations. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves immediately escalating the management of suspected endophthalmitis by consulting the senior ophthalmologist or a designated colleague with subspecialty expertise. This approach is correct because it prioritizes patient safety by ensuring the most experienced clinician is involved in diagnosing and treating a sight-threatening condition. It aligns with the ethical principle of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm). Furthermore, it reflects a commitment to professional accountability and the collaborative nature of high-stakes medical practice, ensuring that established protocols for managing surgical complications are followed. This immediate consultation is crucial for timely and appropriate intervention, which is critical in preventing irreversible vision loss. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves delaying definitive management by waiting for further diagnostic tests to confirm the diagnosis before initiating treatment. This failure to act promptly on a strong clinical suspicion of endophthalmitis violates the principle of beneficence and risks irreversible vision loss. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the urgency required in managing such a severe complication and potentially falls short of professional standards for managing surgical adverse events. Another incorrect approach is to proceed with treatment without adequately informing the patient or their family about the suspected complication, its potential severity, and the proposed management plan. This failure breaches the ethical principle of patient autonomy and the requirement for informed consent. It also undermines trust and can lead to significant distress for the patient and their family, failing to uphold professional standards of transparent communication. A further incorrect approach is to attempt management of the suspected endophthalmitis independently without seeking senior or subspecialty consultation, especially if the treating surgeon lacks extensive experience with such complications. This can be attributed to a failure to recognize the limits of one’s own expertise, potentially leading to suboptimal treatment or exacerbation of the condition, thereby violating the duty of care and the principle of non-maleficence. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such a situation should employ a structured decision-making process. This begins with a rapid assessment of the patient’s clinical signs and symptoms to identify potential sight-threatening complications. Next, they must immediately consult relevant protocols or guidelines for managing post-operative complications. Crucially, they should assess their own level of expertise and experience with the suspected complication and, if there is any doubt or if the complication is severe, immediately escalate to a more senior or subspecialty-trained colleague. Throughout this process, clear and timely communication with the patient and their family regarding the situation, the proposed plan, and potential outcomes is essential. This systematic approach ensures patient safety, upholds ethical standards, and promotes effective team-based care.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a surgeon’s personal financial interests and the imperative to provide objective, patient-centered care. The need for specialized, high-cost ophthalmic surgery, coupled with the surgeon’s ownership stake in the facility, creates a significant potential for bias. Maintaining patient trust and upholding ethical standards requires a transparent and unbiased approach to treatment recommendations. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves the surgeon disclosing their ownership interest in the surgical facility to the patient and then facilitating a referral to an independent, qualified surgeon for a second opinion. This approach prioritizes patient autonomy and informed consent by ensuring the patient is aware of any potential conflicts of interest. It upholds the ethical principle of beneficence by placing the patient’s best interests above any personal gain. Regulatory frameworks, such as those governing medical professional conduct and patient rights, emphasize transparency and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. By recommending an independent assessment, the surgeon demonstrates a commitment to objective medical advice and allows the patient to make a fully informed decision about their care, free from undue influence. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Recommending the surgery at their facility without disclosing ownership interest is a clear ethical failure. This violates the principle of honesty and transparency, potentially misleading the patient about the surgeon’s motivations. It also breaches patient trust and could contravene regulations requiring disclosure of financial interests that may influence medical advice. Proceeding with the surgery at their facility and only disclosing ownership after the procedure is also unacceptable. Disclosure must be proactive, allowing the patient to consider the information before committing to treatment. This approach still risks the patient feeling coerced or that their consent was not fully informed. Suggesting the patient seek a second opinion but failing to disclose their own ownership interest is also problematic. While seeking a second opinion is good practice, the omission of the surgeon’s own conflict of interest undermines the integrity of the referral process and the patient’s ability to critically evaluate all advice received. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing similar situations should adopt a framework that prioritizes patient welfare and ethical integrity. This involves a proactive assessment of potential conflicts of interest. When such conflicts arise, immediate and full disclosure to the patient is paramount. The decision-making process should then focus on ensuring the patient has all necessary information to make autonomous choices, including facilitating access to independent opinions or alternative treatment options. Adherence to professional codes of conduct and relevant regulations should guide every step, ensuring that patient care remains the primary objective.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge related to the interpretation and application of the Elite Indo-Pacific Ophthalmic Surgery Practice Qualification’s blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies. Candidates often face ambiguity regarding how their performance is assessed and the implications of failing to meet the required standards. Navigating these policies requires careful judgment to ensure fair and consistent application, maintaining the integrity of the qualification. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a transparent and consistent application of the established blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies as outlined by the qualification’s governing body. This approach prioritizes fairness and predictability for all candidates. It requires the assessment committee to meticulously review candidate performance against the defined criteria, ensuring that the weighting of different assessment components is adhered to, scores are calculated accurately, and retake eligibility is determined strictly according to the published guidelines. This upholds the credibility of the qualification and ensures that all candidates are evaluated under the same objective standards, preventing any perception of bias or arbitrary decision-making. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves making subjective adjustments to scoring or retake eligibility based on perceived effort or potential, rather than strict adherence to the published policies. This undermines the standardized nature of the qualification and can lead to accusations of favouritism or unfairness. Another incorrect approach is to interpret the policies in a manner that is inconsistent with their stated intent or the spirit of the qualification, perhaps by creating new, unwritten criteria for passing or retaking. This introduces ambiguity and erodes candidate trust. Finally, an approach that prioritizes expediency over accuracy, such as rushing the scoring process or overlooking minor discrepancies in policy adherence, risks compromising the validity of the assessment outcomes. Professional Reasoning: Professionals involved in the administration of qualifications like the Elite Indo-Pacific Ophthalmic Surgery Practice Qualification must adopt a decision-making framework centered on adherence to established policies and ethical principles. This involves a commitment to transparency, fairness, and consistency. When faced with ambiguous situations, the primary recourse should be to consult the official documentation and, if necessary, seek clarification from the relevant governing authority. The focus should always be on upholding the integrity of the assessment process and ensuring that all candidates are treated equitably, regardless of individual circumstances or perceived potential.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent risks associated with complex ophthalmic surgery and the imperative to ensure patient safety and optimal outcomes. The surgeon must balance the desire to provide advanced care with the need for meticulous preparation and risk management, adhering to the highest ethical and professional standards expected within the Elite Indo-Pacific Ophthalmic Surgery Practice. Careful judgment is required to navigate potential complications and ensure all stakeholders are aligned. The best professional practice involves a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach to structured operative planning that prioritizes patient-specific risk assessment and mitigation strategies. This includes a thorough pre-operative evaluation, detailed surgical technique outlining, contingency planning for foreseeable complications, and clear communication with the patient and surgical team. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the core principles of patient safety and informed consent, aligning with the ethical obligations of a medical practitioner to act in the best interest of the patient and to minimize harm. It also reflects best practices in surgical quality assurance, ensuring that potential adverse events are anticipated and managed proactively. An approach that focuses solely on the surgeon’s technical proficiency without adequately addressing patient-specific comorbidities or potential intra-operative challenges represents a significant ethical and professional failure. This oversight neglects the duty to perform a thorough risk assessment tailored to the individual patient, potentially leading to unforeseen complications that could have been mitigated with proper planning. It also falls short of the ethical requirement for comprehensive informed consent, as the patient may not be fully aware of all potential risks specific to their condition. An approach that prioritizes speed and efficiency over detailed planning, perhaps by relying on generalized protocols without specific adaptation to the case, is also professionally unacceptable. This can lead to a failure to identify and address unique patient factors or surgical nuances, increasing the likelihood of errors or suboptimal outcomes. It undermines the principle of individualized patient care and the commitment to excellence expected within a specialized practice. Furthermore, an approach that neglects to involve the entire surgical team in the planning process, or fails to establish clear lines of communication and roles, is problematic. Effective teamwork is crucial for surgical success, and a lack of collaborative planning can result in miscommunication, delays, and an inability to respond effectively to unexpected events. This deviates from professional standards that emphasize a coordinated and multidisciplinary approach to patient care. Professionals should employ a structured decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s condition and surgical goals. This should be followed by a detailed assessment of all potential risks, both general and patient-specific. The operative plan should then be meticulously crafted, incorporating strategies to mitigate identified risks. Crucially, this plan must be communicated effectively to the entire surgical team, and contingency plans for foreseeable complications should be developed and understood by all. Regular review and adaptation of the plan based on new information or evolving patient status are also essential components of professional surgical practice.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the candidate’s desire for efficient preparation with the ethical obligation to ensure they are adequately prepared for the rigorous demands of an Elite Indo-Pacific Ophthalmic Surgery Practice Qualification. Misjudging the timeline or resources can lead to either an underprepared candidate who may not meet the qualification standards, or an overly burdened candidate experiencing burnout, both of which have ethical implications for the qualification body and the candidate’s future practice. Careful judgment is required to recommend a preparation strategy that is both comprehensive and sustainable. The best professional practice involves a structured, phased approach to candidate preparation, integrating diverse learning modalities and allowing for iterative feedback and refinement. This approach acknowledges that mastery in ophthalmic surgery requires not just theoretical knowledge but also practical skill development and acclimatisation to the specific demands of elite Indo-Pacific practice. It aligns with the ethical imperative to uphold the highest standards of the qualification by ensuring candidates are thoroughly assessed and prepared, thereby safeguarding patient welfare and the reputation of the profession. This method also promotes a deeper, more integrated understanding rather than superficial memorisation. An approach that focuses solely on intensive, short-term cramming of theoretical material without sufficient time for practical application or reflection is professionally unacceptable. This fails to address the practical and nuanced skills required for elite ophthalmic surgery and risks producing candidates who can recall information but lack the dexterity, judgment, and adaptability needed in a real-world surgical setting. It also neglects the importance of acclimatising to the specific cultural and operational contexts of Indo-Pacific ophthalmic practice, potentially leading to suboptimal patient care. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to recommend minimal preparation resources, suggesting that prior experience alone is sufficient. This disregards the specific learning objectives and assessment criteria of the Elite Indo-Pacific Ophthalmic Surgery Practice Qualification. Each qualification has unique requirements, and assuming prior experience covers all aspects is a failure to acknowledge the distinct standards and knowledge base being assessed. This can lead to candidates being unprepared for specific elements of the qualification, undermining the integrity of the assessment process. Finally, an approach that prioritises speed and completion over depth of understanding and skill acquisition is ethically flawed. This might involve recommending resources that offer quick summaries or superficial overviews, neglecting the detailed anatomical, physiological, and surgical knowledge essential for elite ophthalmic surgery. Such an approach risks producing practitioners who are not truly competent, potentially jeopardising patient safety and the overall quality of ophthalmic care within the Indo-Pacific region. The professional reasoning framework for this situation should involve: 1) Understanding the specific learning outcomes and assessment criteria of the qualification. 2) Evaluating the candidate’s current knowledge and skill base. 3) Recommending a balanced preparation plan that includes theoretical study, practical skill development, simulation, and exposure to relevant case studies and regional considerations. 4) Emphasising a realistic timeline that allows for consolidation of learning and iterative practice, rather than a rushed, superficial approach. 5) Encouraging self-assessment and seeking feedback throughout the preparation period.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent risks associated with ophthalmic surgery, particularly when considering novel techniques or technologies. The surgeon must balance the potential benefits of improved patient outcomes with the ethical imperative to ensure patient safety and informed consent. Careful judgment is required to navigate the complexities of evidence-based practice, patient-specific factors, and the evolving landscape of surgical innovation. The best professional practice involves a comprehensive pre-operative assessment that meticulously evaluates the patient’s ocular anatomy and physiology in relation to the proposed surgical intervention. This includes detailed imaging, functional testing, and a thorough review of the patient’s medical history to identify any contraindications or risk factors. The surgeon must then integrate this anatomical and physiological understanding with the latest evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of the chosen surgical approach, ensuring it aligns with established perioperative protocols for infection control, pain management, and post-operative care. This approach is correct because it prioritizes patient safety by grounding surgical decisions in a deep understanding of individual patient biology and robust scientific evidence, thereby fulfilling the ethical duty of care and adhering to best practice guidelines for ophthalmic surgery. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with a novel surgical technique based primarily on anecdotal evidence or the surgeon’s personal experience without rigorous pre-operative anatomical and physiological assessment tailored to the individual patient. This fails to adequately identify potential anatomical variations or physiological limitations that could lead to complications, violating the principle of beneficence and potentially causing harm. Another incorrect approach would be to rely solely on generalized perioperative protocols without a specific consideration for how the proposed surgery might uniquely impact the patient’s ocular anatomy and physiology. This overlooks the critical need for personalized care and can lead to inadequate management of specific risks or complications related to the individual’s condition. A further incorrect approach would be to prioritize the adoption of new technology over a thorough understanding of its applied surgical anatomy and physiology. While innovation is important, its implementation must be guided by a deep comprehension of how it interacts with the delicate ocular structures and physiological processes, ensuring that patient safety remains paramount. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s unique anatomy and physiology. This should be followed by a critical appraisal of the available scientific evidence for any proposed intervention, considering its applicability to the individual patient. Ethical considerations, including informed consent and the principle of “do no harm,” must guide every step of the process, ensuring that patient well-being is the ultimate priority.