The analysis reveals a scenario where a midwife is considering how to integrate findings from a translational research project into her clinical practice, specifically concerning the establishment of a new registry for maternal health outcomes. This presents a professional challenge because it requires balancing the ethical imperative to improve patient care with the need for robust, evidence-based implementation that respects patient autonomy and data privacy. Careful judgment is required to ensure that innovation is adopted responsibly and effectively within the existing regulatory landscape. The approach that represents best professional practice involves a systematic review of the translational research findings, followed by a pilot implementation of the registry within a controlled setting, and subsequent evaluation before widespread adoption. This is correct because it aligns with the principles of evidence-based practice, ensuring that new interventions are rigorously tested for efficacy and safety before being integrated into routine care. It also adheres to ethical guidelines by prioritizing patient well-being through a phased introduction that allows for adjustments based on real-world data. Furthermore, this approach respects data protection regulations by ensuring that the registry is designed and implemented with privacy and consent mechanisms from the outset, as mandated by frameworks like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which governs data handling across Europe. This methodical process minimizes risks to patients and ensures that the innovation genuinely contributes to improved global midwifery outcomes. An incorrect approach would be to immediately implement the registry across all clinical settings based solely on the initial research findings without any form of pilot testing or evaluation. This fails to acknowledge the potential for unforeseen challenges in diverse clinical environments and neglects the crucial step of assessing the registry’s practical utility and impact on patient care. Ethically, this could lead to inefficient resource allocation and potentially compromise data quality if the registry is not well-integrated into existing workflows. Another incorrect approach would be to delay the implementation indefinitely due to concerns about data privacy, without actively seeking solutions or consulting with relevant ethics and data protection officers. While data privacy is paramount, an absolute refusal to engage with the innovation process, even when presented with potentially beneficial research, can hinder progress in maternal health. This approach fails to uphold the professional responsibility to seek and implement improvements in care, and it does not demonstrate a proactive effort to navigate regulatory requirements. A further incorrect approach would be to prioritize the novelty of the innovation over established clinical protocols and patient consent procedures. Implementing a new registry without clearly defined consent processes for data collection and usage would violate fundamental patient rights and data protection laws. This approach disregards the ethical requirement for informed consent and the legal obligations regarding the processing of personal health data. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough understanding of the research evidence and its potential applicability. This should be followed by an assessment of the ethical implications, including patient autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Concurrently, a comprehensive review of relevant regulatory requirements, such as data protection laws and professional practice standards, is essential. A phased implementation strategy, starting with pilot projects and robust evaluation, allows for iterative refinement and ensures that innovations are both effective and ethically sound, while remaining compliant with all applicable regulations.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a midwife to balance the immediate needs of a patient with the broader implications of resource allocation and the potential for future health disparities. Navigating these competing demands necessitates a deep understanding of ethical principles, professional guidelines, and the specific regulatory framework governing midwifery practice within the European context. Careful judgment is required to ensure patient safety and well-being while upholding professional integrity and societal responsibility. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves advocating for the patient’s immediate needs while simultaneously initiating a transparent and collaborative process to address the systemic issue. This approach prioritizes the individual’s care, which is a fundamental ethical and regulatory obligation for all healthcare professionals. By engaging with hospital administration and relevant professional bodies, the midwife not only ensures the patient receives necessary care but also contributes to a sustainable solution that benefits future patients and the wider community. This aligns with the European Midwives Association (EMA) Code of Ethics, which emphasizes advocating for women and newborns, and promoting equitable access to quality midwifery care. It also reflects the principles of professional accountability and the duty to report systemic deficiencies that could impact patient care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves solely focusing on the immediate patient without any attempt to address the underlying resource issue. This fails to acknowledge the midwife’s broader professional responsibility to advocate for systemic improvements and could perpetuate a cycle of inadequate resources, ultimately impacting future patient care. It neglects the ethical imperative to contribute to a healthier healthcare system. Another incorrect approach is to prioritize the administrative concerns over the patient’s immediate medical needs. While resource management is important, a healthcare professional’s primary duty is to the patient’s well-being. Delaying or denying necessary care due to administrative hurdles, without exploring all immediate avenues for resolution, constitutes a breach of professional duty and ethical standards. A further incorrect approach is to unilaterally decide to bypass established protocols and procure the necessary equipment independently without proper authorization or consultation. While well-intentioned, this action could lead to the use of unapproved or unsafe equipment, create significant administrative and legal complications for the midwife and the institution, and undermine the established safety and quality assurance processes designed to protect patients. It disregards the importance of a structured and accountable healthcare system. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough assessment of the patient’s immediate needs and risks. This should be followed by an evaluation of available resources and established protocols. When a gap is identified, the professional should first attempt to resolve the issue within existing frameworks, escalating concerns through appropriate channels. This involves clear communication with supervisors, relevant departments, and, if necessary, professional bodies. The process should always prioritize patient safety and well-being while adhering to ethical principles and regulatory requirements. Transparency, collaboration, and a commitment to continuous improvement are key components of effective professional practice.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a healthcare provider’s duty of care and the potential for a patient’s cultural or personal beliefs to influence their healthcare decisions. Navigating this requires sensitivity, respect for autonomy, and adherence to ethical and legal frameworks governing informed consent and patient rights within the European context. The midwife must balance the immediate health needs of the mother and baby with the patient’s right to make decisions about her own body and care. The best approach involves a comprehensive, culturally sensitive discussion with the patient and her family, aiming to understand the underlying reasons for their request and to provide clear, unbiased information about the risks and benefits of all available options, including the recommended medical intervention. This approach prioritizes patient autonomy and informed consent, which are fundamental ethical principles in European healthcare systems and are reinforced by directives on patient rights and cross-border healthcare. It also aligns with the professional standards of midwifery, which emphasize partnership with women and families. By seeking to understand and address the family’s concerns while clearly outlining the medical necessity and potential consequences of refusing care, the midwife upholds her duty of care while respecting the patient’s right to self-determination. An approach that involves immediately overriding the family’s wishes and proceeding with the intervention without further dialogue is ethically and legally unacceptable. This disregards the principle of informed consent, a cornerstone of European healthcare law, which mandates that patients have the right to accept or refuse medical treatment after being fully informed. Such an action could lead to legal repercussions and a severe breach of professional trust. Another unacceptable approach is to simply accede to the family’s request without attempting to understand their reasoning or provide information. While seemingly respectful of cultural beliefs, this fails to uphold the midwife’s primary duty of care to ensure the safety and well-being of both mother and baby. It also neglects the professional obligation to advocate for evidence-based care and to ensure that decisions are made on the basis of accurate information, not solely on fear or misinformation. Finally, an approach that involves solely consulting with hospital administrators or legal counsel without engaging directly with the patient and family to resolve the immediate clinical dilemma is insufficient. While seeking guidance is important, the primary responsibility for patient care and communication rests with the frontline healthcare provider. Delaying direct engagement with the patient and family to address their concerns and explain the medical situation prolongs the period of uncertainty and potential risk. The professional decision-making process in such situations should involve: 1) Active listening and empathetic engagement to understand the patient’s and family’s perspective and concerns. 2) Providing clear, accurate, and culturally appropriate information about the medical condition, proposed interventions, alternatives, and potential consequences of refusal. 3) Exploring the underlying reasons for their beliefs or requests. 4) Documenting all discussions and decisions meticulously. 5) Seeking consultation with colleagues, ethics committees, or legal advisors if consensus cannot be reached or if there are significant concerns about patient safety. The ultimate goal is to reach a shared decision that respects patient autonomy while ensuring the best possible health outcomes.

The scenario presents a challenge for a midwife who has failed a certification exam and is considering their next steps. The professional challenge lies in navigating the institution’s policies regarding exam performance and retakes while upholding ethical standards of competence and patient safety. Careful judgment is required to ensure that any subsequent actions align with the Advanced Pan-Europe Global Midwifery Board Certification’s commitment to maintaining high standards of midwifery practice. The best professional approach involves a thorough review of the official Blueprint, scoring, and retake policies as outlined by the Advanced Pan-Europe Global Midwifery Board Certification. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the established framework governing certification. By understanding the precise criteria for passing, the available avenues for retaking the exam, and any associated requirements or limitations, the midwife can make an informed decision that respects the certification body’s regulations. This adherence to policy is ethically mandated, as it ensures that the midwife is pursuing a path that is recognized and approved by the certifying authority, ultimately safeguarding the integrity of the profession and the safety of the patients they will serve. An incorrect approach would be to seek informal advice from colleagues or mentors without consulting the official documentation. This is professionally unacceptable because it bypasses the authoritative source of information, potentially leading to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the policies. Relying on informal advice risks non-compliance with the Board’s regulations, which could have serious consequences for the midwife’s certification status. Another incorrect approach would be to assume that a simple re-examination is automatically permitted without understanding any potential prerequisites or limitations. This is professionally unsound as it ignores the possibility of specific conditions attached to retakes, such as mandatory additional study, a waiting period, or a limit on the number of attempts. Such assumptions could lead to the midwife taking actions that are not in accordance with the Board’s procedures, jeopardizing their progress. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to consider abandoning the certification process altogether without fully exploring all available options and understanding the implications. While personal circumstances can be challenging, a hasty decision to give up without a comprehensive understanding of the retake policies and support structures could be premature and detrimental to the midwife’s career aspirations and their ability to practice. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should begin with a commitment to transparency and adherence to established protocols. Midwives facing challenges with certification should prioritize seeking information directly from the certifying body. This involves carefully reading and understanding all official documents related to the examination, including the blueprint, scoring mechanisms, and retake policies. If clarification is needed, direct communication with the Board’s administrative or examination support staff should be pursued. This systematic and evidence-based approach ensures that decisions are grounded in fact and align with professional and regulatory expectations.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge related to the ethical and regulatory implications of using AI-driven diagnostic tools in midwifery practice. The core challenge lies in balancing the potential benefits of advanced technology with the fundamental responsibilities of patient safety, informed consent, and professional accountability. Midwives must exercise careful judgment to ensure that technological integration enhances, rather than compromises, the quality and ethical standards of care. The rapid evolution of AI necessitates a proactive and informed approach to its adoption. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive impact assessment that prioritizes patient well-being and regulatory compliance. This approach entails a thorough evaluation of the AI tool’s accuracy, reliability, and potential biases, alongside a clear understanding of its limitations. Crucially, it mandates obtaining explicit informed consent from patients regarding the use of AI in their care, detailing its role, benefits, and risks. Furthermore, it requires establishing clear protocols for professional oversight, ensuring that the midwife retains ultimate decision-making authority and accountability, and that the AI serves as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for clinical judgment. This aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, as well as the regulatory expectation for practitioners to use technology responsibly and transparently. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Adopting an AI tool solely based on its perceived efficiency without a rigorous assessment of its clinical validity and patient impact is professionally unacceptable. This approach risks introducing diagnostic errors or biases that could harm patients, violating the principle of non-maleficence. It also fails to uphold patient autonomy by not seeking informed consent for the use of novel technology. Implementing an AI tool without establishing clear lines of professional accountability, allowing the AI to dictate care decisions, is a significant ethical and regulatory failure. This undermines the midwife’s professional responsibility and could lead to a diffusion of accountability, making it difficult to address adverse outcomes. It also disregards the fundamental requirement for human oversight in clinical decision-making. Utilizing an AI tool without ensuring adequate training for the midwifery team on its operation, interpretation of results, and integration into existing workflows is also professionally unsound. This can lead to misinterpretation of AI outputs, inappropriate application of the technology, and ultimately, compromised patient care. It fails to meet the standard of competence expected of healthcare professionals. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic approach to technology integration. This begins with identifying a clinical need that the technology can address. Subsequently, a thorough due diligence process must be undertaken, evaluating the technology’s evidence base, regulatory approval status, and potential risks and benefits. Patient engagement and informed consent are paramount at every stage. Establishing clear governance structures, including protocols for oversight, accountability, and ongoing evaluation, is essential. Continuous professional development to stay abreast of technological advancements and their implications for practice is also a critical component of responsible innovation.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the established principles of continuity of care with the imperative of providing culturally safe and equitable midwifery services across diverse European populations. Midwives must navigate varying cultural expectations, language barriers, and differing understandings of health and childbirth, all while upholding the core tenets of the profession and adhering to relevant European Union directives and national professional standards for midwifery practice. Careful judgment is required to ensure that continuity models do not inadvertently create barriers to care or perpetuate existing health inequalities. The best approach involves proactively developing and implementing continuity of care models that are explicitly designed to be culturally responsive and inclusive. This means engaging with diverse communities to understand their specific needs and preferences, co-designing care pathways that accommodate cultural practices and beliefs, and ensuring that communication is effective and respectful, potentially through the use of interpreters or culturally competent communication strategies. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the dual requirements of continuity and cultural safety, aligning with ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, and is supported by professional guidelines emphasizing person-centred care and the elimination of discrimination in healthcare provision across the EU. An approach that prioritizes a single, standardized continuity model without adaptation for cultural diversity fails to acknowledge the heterogeneity of the European population. This can lead to care that is perceived as alienating or disrespectful, potentially deterring women from accessing or engaging with essential maternity services, thereby violating principles of equitable access and potentially leading to poorer health outcomes. Another incorrect approach would be to delegate the responsibility for cultural adaptation solely to individual midwives without providing adequate training, resources, or institutional support. While individual effort is important, systemic issues of cultural safety require organizational commitment and structured interventions. This approach risks overburdening individual practitioners and can lead to inconsistent application of culturally sensitive care, undermining the effectiveness of continuity models. A further unacceptable approach is to assume that a lack of explicit cultural adaptation is acceptable as long as the core medical aspects of care are delivered. This overlooks the profound impact of cultural factors on a woman’s experience of pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care. It fails to recognize that cultural safety is not merely an add-on but an integral component of high-quality, woman-centred care, and neglecting it can lead to significant ethical breaches and a breakdown of trust between the caregiver and the woman. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve a continuous cycle of assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation. Professionals must first assess the cultural landscape of the community they serve, identifying potential barriers and facilitators to culturally safe continuity of care. They should then collaboratively plan care models that integrate cultural considerations from the outset, ensuring adequate resources and training are available. Implementation should be flexible and responsive to feedback. Finally, ongoing evaluation, involving the women and communities themselves, is crucial to refine and improve the culturally responsive continuity of care models, ensuring they remain effective and ethical.

The assessment process reveals a common challenge in professional certification: balancing the desire for recognition with the strict adherence to established eligibility criteria. Professionals often seek advanced certifications to validate their expertise and enhance their career prospects. However, the integrity of such certifications relies on a rigorous and transparent application of eligibility requirements. Misinterpreting or circumventing these requirements, even with good intentions, can undermine the credibility of the certification and the professional themselves. Careful judgment is required to ensure that all applications are evaluated fairly and consistently against the defined standards. The best approach involves a thorough review of the applicant’s documentation against the explicit eligibility criteria for the Advanced Pan-Europe Global Midwifery Board Certification. This includes verifying the required years of practice, the nature and scope of advanced clinical experience, evidence of continuous professional development, and any specific educational prerequisites mandated by the certification body. Adherence to these established criteria ensures that only qualified individuals are granted the certification, upholding the standards of advanced midwifery practice across Pan-European regions. This aligns with the fundamental purpose of the certification, which is to recognize and promote excellence in advanced midwifery care through a standardized and verifiable process. An incorrect approach would be to grant certification based on a generalized understanding of the applicant’s extensive experience, without meticulously checking for specific evidence of advanced practice as defined by the certification framework. This fails to uphold the integrity of the certification process, as it bypasses the defined benchmarks for advanced competency. It also creates an unfair precedent for other applicants who have diligently met all specific requirements. Another incorrect approach is to consider the applicant’s strong reputation within their local healthcare community as a substitute for meeting formal eligibility criteria. While reputation is valuable, it does not inherently demonstrate the specific advanced skills and knowledge required for a Pan-European certification. This approach risks diluting the certification’s value by prioritizing informal recognition over objective, documented qualifications. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to assume that the applicant’s current senior role automatically qualifies them, without verifying if that role involves the specific advanced clinical responsibilities and continuous learning that the certification mandates. Seniority does not always equate to the specialized advanced practice the certification aims to validate. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that prioritizes objective evidence and adherence to established guidelines. This involves: 1) Clearly understanding the specific eligibility requirements of the certification. 2) Requesting and meticulously reviewing all required documentation from the applicant. 3) Comparing the submitted evidence directly against each eligibility criterion. 4) Seeking clarification from the certification body if any aspect of the requirements or the applicant’s submission is ambiguous. 5) Making a decision based solely on whether the applicant has demonstrably met all stated requirements, ensuring fairness and maintaining the credibility of the certification.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent unpredictability of physiological responses during the postnatal period, particularly when a mother experiences a significant deviation from the expected normal recovery. The midwife must balance the need for close observation and intervention with the mother’s right to privacy and autonomy, while ensuring adherence to established best practices and regulatory guidelines for postnatal care. Careful judgment is required to differentiate between normal physiological adaptation and signs of potential complications, necessitating a nuanced approach to monitoring and communication. The best professional practice involves a comprehensive and individualized assessment of the mother’s physical and emotional well-being, coupled with clear, empathetic communication and collaborative decision-making. This approach prioritizes the mother’s safety and recovery by systematically evaluating her vital signs, lochia, uterine involution, perineal status, and signs of infection or thromboembolism. Crucially, it involves actively engaging the mother in discussions about her recovery, addressing her concerns, and explaining any necessary interventions or monitoring. This aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for autonomy, as well as regulatory frameworks that mandate evidence-based care and informed consent. The midwife’s role is to provide expert support and guidance, empowering the mother to participate actively in her own care. An incorrect approach would be to solely rely on routine postnatal checks without a thorough, individualized assessment, failing to recognize subtle but significant physiological changes. This neglects the professional duty to identify and manage potential complications, potentially leading to delayed diagnosis and treatment, thereby violating the principle of beneficence and potentially causing harm. Another incorrect approach would be to implement interventions or restrictions without adequate explanation or consent from the mother. This undermines her autonomy and right to make informed decisions about her body and care, contravening ethical principles and potentially leading to distress and non-compliance. A further incorrect approach would be to dismiss the mother’s expressed concerns as normal postnatal adjustment without a proper clinical evaluation. This demonstrates a failure to listen to the patient, potentially overlooking early signs of serious complications and failing to uphold the duty of care. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough assessment of the presenting situation, considering the mother’s individual history, current physiological status, and expressed concerns. This should be followed by an evaluation of available evidence-based practices and relevant professional guidelines. The midwife must then consider the ethical implications of each potential course of action, prioritizing patient safety, autonomy, and well-being. Open and honest communication with the mother, involving her in the decision-making process, is paramount. Regular re-evaluation and adaptation of the care plan based on the mother’s ongoing response are essential components of effective postnatal care.

This scenario presents a professionally challenging situation due to the rapid deterioration of a fetal heart rate pattern during labor, demanding immediate and decisive action to ensure the well-being of both mother and fetus. The midwife must balance the urgency of the situation with established protocols and ethical considerations, particularly the principle of beneficence and non-maleficence. Careful judgment is required to interpret the fetal monitoring data accurately and select the most appropriate intervention. The best professional approach involves immediate escalation of care to the obstetric team while simultaneously initiating bedside interventions to improve fetal oxygenation. This includes positioning the mother on her side, administering oxygen, and discontinuing oxytocin if it is being administered. This multi-pronged strategy addresses potential causes of fetal distress and ensures that expert medical assessment is sought without delay. This aligns with the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines for neonatal life support and the principles of obstetric emergency management, emphasizing prompt recognition and intervention. Ethical obligations to the patient necessitate acting swiftly to mitigate harm and promote a positive outcome. An incorrect approach would be to solely rely on bedside interventions without informing the obstetric team. This delays critical medical assessment and potential surgical intervention, such as an emergency cesarean section, which may be necessary to resolve severe fetal distress. This failure to escalate care violates the principle of beneficence by not ensuring the patient receives the highest level of care available and could be considered a breach of professional duty. Another incorrect approach is to wait for the fetal heart rate to spontaneously improve before escalating care. While spontaneous improvement can occur, the persistence of concerning patterns, especially with signs of severity, requires proactive management. Delaying escalation based on hope rather than evidence-based action can lead to irreversible fetal harm and is ethically indefensible. Finally, an approach that involves solely administering medication without considering maternal positioning or oxygenation, or without escalating care, is also professionally unacceptable. While certain medications might be considered in specific contexts, they are typically adjuncts to, not replacements for, fundamental interventions and timely escalation. This narrow focus fails to address the multifactorial nature of fetal distress and neglects essential immediate management steps. Professionals should employ a structured decision-making process, often referred to as a “top-down” approach in obstetric emergencies. This involves: 1. Recognizing the emergency (abnormal fetal heart rate pattern). 2. Initiating immediate, basic interventions (positioning, oxygen, discontinue oxytocin). 3. Simultaneously escalating care by notifying the obstetric team. 4. Continuously reassessing the fetal status and maternal response. 5. Collaborating with the multidisciplinary team to determine the definitive management plan. This systematic approach ensures that all critical steps are taken in a timely and coordinated manner.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a significant professional challenge due to the critical nature of pain management during labour and delivery, the potential for adverse effects of pharmacological interventions on both mother and fetus, and the need for seamless integration of anaesthetic and midwifery care. The midwife must navigate complex pharmacological choices, understand the physiological interfaces between anaesthesia and obstetrics, and ensure patient safety and informed consent within a pan-European regulatory context. The challenge lies in balancing effective analgesia and anaesthesia with the physiological well-being of the mother and neonate, while adhering to evolving best practices and guidelines. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to pain management during labour and delivery, prioritizing patient safety and informed consent. This includes a thorough pre-procedure assessment of the mother’s medical history, current physiological status, and preferences regarding pain relief. It necessitates close collaboration with the anaesthetist to understand the specific pharmacological agents being considered, their mechanisms of action, potential side effects, and contraindications relevant to the obstetric context. The midwife must be proficient in monitoring the maternal and fetal response to any administered analgesia or anaesthesia, recognizing early signs of complications, and being prepared to intervene appropriately. Crucially, this approach emphasizes clear, ongoing communication with the birthing person and their partner, ensuring they understand the proposed interventions, their benefits, risks, and alternatives, thereby facilitating truly informed consent. Adherence to relevant European guidelines on obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia, as well as national professional standards, is paramount. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves relying solely on the anaesthetist’s recommendations without independent critical evaluation or ensuring the birthing person’s full understanding. This fails to uphold the midwife’s professional responsibility for holistic maternal care and informed consent. It bypasses the essential midwifery role in assessing the individual patient’s needs and preferences beyond the immediate anaesthetic procedure. Another unacceptable approach is to administer analgesia or anaesthesia without a clear understanding of the specific pharmacological agents, their potential interactions, or the physiological implications for both mother and fetus. This demonstrates a lack of due diligence and a failure to adhere to principles of safe practice, potentially leading to adverse outcomes. A further incorrect approach would be to proceed with pain management without obtaining explicit informed consent, or by providing incomplete or misleading information. This violates fundamental ethical principles and patient autonomy, and is contrary to regulatory requirements for patient care across Europe. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic decision-making process that begins with a thorough patient assessment, encompassing medical history, current condition, and personal preferences. This is followed by a collaborative discussion with the anaesthetist to understand the proposed pharmacological interventions, their rationale, and potential risks and benefits. The midwife must then engage in a comprehensive informed consent process with the birthing person, ensuring they have all necessary information to make a decision. Continuous monitoring of maternal and fetal well-being throughout the procedure, coupled with a readiness to manage any emergent complications, is essential. Adherence to established European and national professional guidelines and regulatory frameworks provides the foundational structure for safe and ethical practice.