This scenario presents a professionally challenging situation due to the inherent tension between the principles of humanitarian action and the operational realities of engaging with military forces. The need to maintain neutrality, impartiality, and independence while ensuring the safety and access of affected populations requires careful navigation. Missteps can compromise the integrity of humanitarian efforts, endanger aid workers, and alienate affected communities. The core challenge lies in balancing the imperative to deliver assistance with the need to avoid being perceived as taking sides or becoming instrumentalized by military objectives. The best approach involves a proactive and principled engagement with the military, clearly defining the boundaries of cooperation and ensuring that all interactions are guided by humanitarian principles. This includes establishing clear communication channels, agreeing on operational protocols that respect humanitarian independence, and consistently advocating for humanitarian access and protection. This approach is correct because it directly upholds the core humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence. By engaging proactively and defining clear boundaries, humanitarian actors can mitigate the risks of association with military operations, ensure their ability to reach all affected populations without discrimination, and maintain the trust of both civilians and non-state armed groups. This aligns with international guidelines on civil-military coordination, which emphasize the importance of humanitarian actors retaining control over their operations and communication. An incorrect approach would be to passively accept military offers of support without rigorous vetting or to avoid any engagement with military forces, even when such engagement is necessary for access or protection. Passively accepting military support without clear protocols risks compromising humanitarian neutrality and impartiality, potentially leading to the perception that humanitarian aid is being used to further military objectives. This can alienate affected populations and other stakeholders, hindering future access and operations. Conversely, complete avoidance of engagement, even when military forces control access routes or provide security, can lead to missed opportunities for essential coordination that could enhance humanitarian access and the protection of civilians, thereby failing the principle of humanity. Another incorrect approach is to prioritize operational expediency over humanitarian principles, such as agreeing to deliver aid only in areas deemed strategically important by the military, or allowing military personnel to dictate the distribution of aid. This directly violates the principle of impartiality, which dictates that assistance should be provided based on need alone, without discrimination. It also undermines independence, as humanitarian operations become subservient to military agendas. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a thorough risk assessment, a clear understanding of humanitarian principles and relevant guidelines, and a commitment to principled engagement. This includes: 1) Identifying the specific humanitarian needs and the affected population’s vulnerabilities. 2) Assessing the presence and role of military actors and their potential impact on humanitarian operations. 3) Developing a clear strategy for engagement that prioritizes humanitarian principles and defines acceptable forms of cooperation and communication. 4) Continuously monitoring and evaluating the impact of civil-military interactions on humanitarian operations and the safety of affected populations. 5) Maintaining open and transparent communication with all relevant stakeholders, including affected communities, military forces, and other humanitarian actors.

The control framework reveals a complex scenario requiring careful navigation of professional responsibilities and ethical considerations within the context of the Applied North American Protection and Gender-Based Violence Health Response Specialist Certification. This situation is professionally challenging because it demands a nuanced understanding of the certification’s purpose and eligibility criteria, particularly when faced with a candidate whose background might not perfectly align with the most straightforward interpretation of the requirements. The specialist must exercise sound judgment to ensure fair and accurate assessment while upholding the integrity of the certification process. The best approach involves a thorough review of the candidate’s submitted documentation against the stated purpose and eligibility requirements of the Applied North American Protection and Gender-Based Violence Health Response Specialist Certification. This includes a detailed examination of their professional experience, educational background, and any relevant training, looking for evidence of direct or transferable skills and knowledge pertinent to protection and gender-based violence health response within a North American context. The justification for this approach lies in its adherence to the core principles of the certification: to validate competence in a specific area. By meticulously evaluating the candidate’s qualifications against the established criteria, the specialist ensures that only those who genuinely meet the standards are certified, thereby maintaining the credibility and value of the certification. This aligns with the ethical obligation to apply standards consistently and fairly. An approach that focuses solely on the candidate’s stated job title without examining the substance of their responsibilities would be professionally unacceptable. This fails to acknowledge that job titles can be varied and may not always accurately reflect the scope of work performed. The ethical failure here is a superficial assessment that could lead to the certification of individuals who lack the necessary practical experience or knowledge, undermining the certification’s purpose. Another professionally unacceptable approach would be to immediately disqualify the candidate based on a perceived minor discrepancy in their documentation without seeking clarification or further information. This demonstrates a lack of due diligence and a failure to consider the possibility of transferable skills or alternative forms of relevant experience. The ethical lapse involves an arbitrary decision that does not allow for a comprehensive evaluation of the candidate’s suitability, potentially excluding deserving individuals. Furthermore, an approach that prioritizes expediency over accuracy, such as approving the certification based on a quick glance at the application, is also unacceptable. This disregards the importance of a rigorous assessment process and risks compromising the quality of certified specialists. The ethical failure is a dereliction of duty to thoroughly vet candidates, which can have serious implications for the effectiveness of gender-based violence health response services. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a systematic evaluation of all submitted evidence, a clear understanding of the certification’s purpose and eligibility criteria, and a commitment to fairness and thoroughness. When faced with ambiguity, professionals should seek clarification, consult relevant guidelines, and make decisions based on a comprehensive assessment of the candidate’s qualifications and their alignment with the certification’s objectives.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires immediate action in a volatile environment with limited information, where the health and safety of a vulnerable population are at stake. The specialist must balance the urgency of the situation with the need for accurate data to guide effective interventions, while also considering the ethical implications of data collection and use in a crisis. Careful judgment is required to prioritize actions that will yield the most impactful and ethically sound results. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves initiating a rapid needs assessment that prioritizes the collection of essential epidemiological data on potential gender-based violence (GBV) indicators and immediate health risks. This approach is correct because it aligns with established public health principles for crisis response, emphasizing the need for timely, actionable information to inform resource allocation and intervention strategies. Specifically, it allows for the identification of the most pressing health threats and the prevalence of GBV, enabling the development of targeted support services and the implementation of appropriate surveillance mechanisms. This proactive data gathering is crucial for advocating for resources and ensuring that interventions are evidence-based and responsive to the specific needs of the affected population, adhering to ethical guidelines that mandate the protection of vulnerable groups and the responsible use of data. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to focus solely on general health needs without specifically disaggregating data to identify GBV prevalence or related health consequences. This fails to acknowledge the unique and often hidden nature of GBV in crises, leading to potentially inadequate or misdirected interventions that do not address the specific vulnerabilities and needs of survivors. It also misses the opportunity to establish crucial baseline data for future monitoring and advocacy related to GBV. Another incorrect approach would be to delay any data collection until a comprehensive, long-term surveillance system can be fully established. This is professionally unacceptable because it prioritizes methodological perfection over immediate humanitarian needs. In a crisis, delays in data collection can mean critical delays in providing life-saving assistance, identifying at-risk populations, and preventing further harm. The urgency of the situation demands a pragmatic, phased approach to surveillance, starting with rapid assessments. A third incorrect approach would be to rely entirely on anecdotal evidence and qualitative reports without any systematic epidemiological data collection. While qualitative data is valuable for understanding context and lived experiences, it is insufficient on its own to accurately assess the scale of health issues, including GBV, or to inform resource allocation decisions. This approach risks over or underestimating the problem, leading to inefficient or ineffective responses. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with understanding the immediate context and the potential health and GBV risks. This involves prioritizing rapid data collection that is both feasible in a crisis setting and provides actionable insights. The framework should then guide the selection of appropriate assessment tools and methods, ensuring ethical considerations, such as data privacy and informed consent, are integrated from the outset. Finally, the framework should support the iterative refinement of surveillance systems based on initial findings and evolving needs, ensuring a continuous cycle of assessment, intervention, and learning.

This scenario is professionally challenging due to the inherent power imbalance between humanitarian aid workers and vulnerable populations, the potential for exploitation, and the ethical imperative to uphold the dignity and rights of survivors of gender-based violence. Careful judgment is required to ensure that interventions are not only effective but also ethically sound and culturally appropriate, respecting the autonomy of individuals and communities. The best professional practice involves a rights-based approach that prioritizes the safety, dignity, and self-determination of survivors. This approach mandates obtaining informed consent for all interventions, ensuring confidentiality, and providing comprehensive, survivor-centered care that addresses immediate needs while also supporting long-term recovery and empowerment. This aligns with international humanitarian principles and ethical guidelines for working with vulnerable populations, emphasizing non-maleficence, beneficence, and respect for persons. It also acknowledges the specific vulnerabilities of survivors of gender-based violence and the need for specialized, trauma-informed support. An approach that focuses solely on immediate medical needs without adequately addressing psychosocial support and legal recourse fails to recognize the holistic nature of recovery for survivors of gender-based violence. This oversight can lead to re-traumatization and further marginalization, violating the principle of beneficence by not providing comprehensive care. Another unacceptable approach involves imposing external solutions without community consultation or participation. This can undermine local capacities, disregard cultural norms, and lead to interventions that are unsustainable or inappropriate, potentially causing harm by failing to respect the autonomy and agency of the affected population. Furthermore, an approach that prioritizes data collection for reporting purposes over the immediate safety and well-being of survivors is ethically indefensible. This can lead to the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and a breach of confidentiality, violating fundamental ethical principles and potentially exposing survivors to further risk. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough needs assessment that is participatory and survivor-informed. This should be followed by a careful consideration of ethical principles, relevant humanitarian standards, and local cultural contexts. Prioritizing the safety, dignity, and rights of individuals, particularly those who have experienced gender-based violence, should guide all programmatic decisions. Continuous reflection, consultation with affected communities, and adherence to established ethical guidelines are crucial for navigating complex humanitarian health responses.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires balancing the need for accurate assessment of candidate performance with the ethical imperative of fairness and transparency in certification processes. The audit findings highlight a potential discrepancy in how the certification body is applying its blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies, which could impact the validity and perceived fairness of the certification. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the certification remains robust, equitable, and compliant with established professional standards. The best professional approach involves a thorough, data-driven review of the audit findings. This entails a detailed examination of the certification blueprint, the scoring mechanisms, and the documented retake policies. The goal is to identify any inconsistencies or deviations from the established framework. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the audit’s concerns by seeking objective evidence of compliance or non-compliance. It aligns with principles of good governance and professional accountability, ensuring that the certification process is administered according to its stated rules and objectives. Furthermore, it provides a solid foundation for any necessary corrective actions, ensuring they are targeted and effective. An incorrect approach would be to dismiss the audit findings without a proper investigation, perhaps due to time constraints or a belief that the current processes are inherently sound. This fails to acknowledge the potential for systemic issues or errors, thereby neglecting the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the certification. Ethically, this demonstrates a lack of due diligence and a disregard for the feedback provided by the audit, which could lead to continued unfairness for candidates. Another incorrect approach would be to implement immediate, sweeping changes to the blueprint weighting, scoring, or retake policies based solely on the audit’s preliminary observations, without a comprehensive analysis. This reactive measure risks creating new inconsistencies or undermining the validity of the certification by altering established standards without sufficient justification. It also fails to address the root cause of the audit findings, which may lie in the application of policies rather than the policies themselves. A final incorrect approach would be to focus solely on the retake policy as the source of the problem, without considering how blueprint weighting and scoring might be contributing factors. This narrow focus overlooks the interconnectedness of these elements within the certification framework and could lead to an incomplete or ineffective resolution of the issues identified by the audit. Professionals facing such situations should employ a structured decision-making process. This involves: 1) Acknowledging and taking seriously all audit findings. 2) Initiating a comprehensive review of relevant documentation and data, including the certification blueprint, scoring rubrics, and retake policies. 3) Engaging relevant stakeholders, such as subject matter experts and certification administrators, to gather insights and perspectives. 4) Identifying specific areas of discrepancy or concern based on objective evidence. 5) Developing and implementing targeted corrective actions, with clear timelines and accountability. 6) Establishing a mechanism for ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure the effectiveness of the implemented changes and to prevent recurrence of issues.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for information with the ethical and legal obligations to protect sensitive personal data and ensure informed consent. A candidate’s preparation for a certification exam, especially one focused on sensitive topics like gender-based violence health response, involves access to and potential disclosure of personal information. Navigating this requires a nuanced understanding of privacy regulations and ethical best practices in data handling. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a clear, upfront communication strategy that prioritizes informed consent and data privacy. This means explicitly informing candidates about what data is collected, how it will be used for preparation resources and timeline recommendations, who will have access to it, and how it will be protected. Providing candidates with a clear opt-in mechanism for any data sharing beyond what is strictly necessary for their immediate certification preparation, and offering them control over their data, aligns with principles of data protection and ethical research/training practices. This approach respects individual autonomy and builds trust, which is crucial in fields dealing with sensitive health information. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves assuming consent based on registration for the certification. This fails to meet the standard of explicit, informed consent required by privacy regulations. Candidates may not fully understand the implications of their data being used for broader resource development or timeline analysis without clear disclosure. This can lead to breaches of privacy and erode trust. Another incorrect approach is to collect extensive personal data without a clear, stated purpose directly related to the candidate’s immediate certification preparation and timeline recommendations. Collecting data for potential future, unspecified uses, or for aggregated reporting without explicit consent, violates data minimization principles and can be seen as an overreach. A third incorrect approach is to use anonymized data for resource development without first obtaining consent for the initial collection of that data, even if the anonymization process is robust. While anonymization is a strong privacy measure, the initial collection and potential for re-identification, however remote, still require transparency and consent regarding the data’s ultimate use. Furthermore, if the “anonymized” data still contains elements that could indirectly identify individuals or sensitive details related to their experiences with gender-based violence, its use without consent is ethically problematic. Professional Reasoning: Professionals in this field must adopt a proactive, consent-driven approach to data handling. This involves a continuous assessment of data needs against privacy obligations. When developing resources or providing personalized recommendations, the guiding principle should be “minimum necessary data” and “maximum transparency.” Professionals should always ask: “Is this data essential for the candidate’s immediate benefit and preparation? Have I clearly explained why I need it and how I will use it? Have I obtained explicit consent?” This ethical framework ensures compliance with privacy laws and upholds the dignity and rights of the individuals being served.

This scenario presents a significant professional challenge due to the inherent complexities of establishing a functional field hospital in a disaster-stricken area, particularly concerning WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) and supply chain logistics. The rapid onset of a public health crisis, coupled with potential infrastructure damage and limited resources, necessitates swift, informed, and ethically sound decision-making. The specialist must balance immediate life-saving needs with long-term sustainability and adherence to established health and humanitarian standards. Careful judgment is required to prioritize interventions, allocate scarce resources effectively, and ensure the safety and dignity of affected populations and healthcare workers. The best professional approach involves a multi-faceted strategy that prioritizes immediate WASH needs for disease prevention while simultaneously establishing robust supply chain mechanisms for essential medical supplies and equipment. This includes conducting a rapid needs assessment to identify critical WASH deficiencies (e.g., access to safe water, sanitation facilities, hygiene promotion) and implementing immediate, scalable solutions. Concurrently, a comprehensive supply chain assessment should be undertaken to map existing routes, identify potential bottlenecks, and establish secure, transparent procurement and distribution channels for medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, and equipment. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the foundational elements of public health in an emergency setting. Adherence to guidelines from organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and Sphere Standards for humanitarian response is paramount. These standards emphasize the critical link between WASH and the prevention of communicable diseases, which are often exacerbated in post-disaster environments. A well-managed supply chain ensures that medical interventions are not only available but also reach those who need them in a timely and efficient manner, preventing stockouts and waste, and ultimately saving lives. This integrated approach aligns with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence by proactively mitigating health risks and ensuring effective care delivery. An incorrect approach would be to solely focus on immediate medical treatment without adequately addressing WASH infrastructure. This failure to prioritize sanitation and hygiene would likely lead to secondary outbreaks of waterborne and vector-borne diseases, overwhelming the very medical capacity being established and increasing morbidity and mortality. This neglects the fundamental principle of disease prevention, a core tenet of public health response. Another incorrect approach would be to establish a complex, centralized supply chain system without considering the immediate and often chaotic realities of the operational environment. This could involve lengthy procurement processes, reliance on potentially compromised transportation routes, or a lack of local context integration, leading to critical delays in the delivery of essential medical supplies and equipment. Such an approach fails to acknowledge the dynamic nature of disaster logistics and the need for adaptable, resilient systems. A further incorrect approach would be to overlook the importance of hygiene promotion and education for both patients and staff. Without active engagement in hygiene practices, the risk of healthcare-associated infections and community transmission remains high, undermining the effectiveness of the field hospital. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the holistic nature of health response. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a rapid, comprehensive needs assessment, integrating WASH, medical, and logistical requirements. This should be followed by a prioritization matrix that balances immediate life-saving interventions with preventative measures and long-term sustainability. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of both WASH facilities and supply chain performance are crucial, allowing for adaptive management and course correction. Collaboration with local authorities, international organizations, and community leaders is essential to ensure culturally appropriate and contextually relevant interventions. Ethical considerations, including equity of access, transparency, and accountability, must guide all decisions.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing immediate humanitarian needs with long-term health and protection outcomes for vulnerable populations, specifically pregnant and lactating women and their children in a displacement setting. The limited resources, potential for cultural insensitivity, and the critical nature of maternal-child health necessitate a nuanced and evidence-based approach. Failure to prioritize appropriately can lead to preventable morbidity and mortality, as well as exacerbate protection risks. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves integrating nutrition interventions with comprehensive maternal-child health services and robust protection mechanisms. This means ensuring access to nutritious food, micronutrient supplementation, and breastfeeding support, alongside essential antenatal and postnatal care, immunization, and safe delivery services. Crucially, it also entails establishing or strengthening referral pathways for protection concerns such as gender-based violence, child protection, and psychosocial support. This integrated strategy is correct because it addresses the interconnectedness of health and protection needs in displacement. It aligns with international humanitarian principles and guidelines, such as those from the Sphere Standards, which emphasize the right to health and protection, and the specific recommendations from UN agencies like UNICEF and WHO on essential nutrition and maternal-child health services in emergencies. Ethically, it upholds the principle of beneficence by maximizing positive health outcomes and non-maleficence by minimizing harm through comprehensive care and protection. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to focus solely on providing food aid without integrating it with essential health services. This fails to address critical aspects of maternal and child health, such as micronutrient deficiencies, preventable infections, and the need for skilled birth attendance, thereby increasing risks. Another incorrect approach is to prioritize health services but neglect the specific protection needs of women and children, particularly in contexts where gender-based violence is prevalent. This leaves vulnerable individuals exposed to further harm and trauma, undermining overall well-being. A third incorrect approach is to implement separate, uncoordinated programs for nutrition, health, and protection. This leads to fragmentation of services, potential duplication of efforts, gaps in care, and inefficient use of resources, ultimately failing to meet the holistic needs of the affected population. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a rights-based, integrated approach. This involves conducting thorough needs assessments that consider both health and protection vulnerabilities. Program design should prioritize evidence-based interventions that are culturally appropriate and context-specific. Collaboration and coordination with other humanitarian actors, local authorities, and community representatives are essential for effective service delivery and referral mechanisms. Continuous monitoring and evaluation are necessary to adapt interventions based on evolving needs and program effectiveness, ensuring accountability to the affected population.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves navigating the inherent risks of an austere mission environment while upholding the organization’s duty of care towards its staff. The remote location, potential for limited resources, and the psychological impact of working in a high-stress, potentially dangerous setting necessitate a proactive and comprehensive approach to security and wellbeing. Failure to adequately address these aspects can lead to staff burnout, compromised operational effectiveness, and potential legal or ethical repercussions for the organization. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multi-layered strategy that prioritizes proactive risk mitigation and robust support systems. This approach begins with a thorough pre-deployment assessment of security threats and environmental hazards, followed by the implementation of clear security protocols, communication plans, and emergency response procedures. Crucially, it includes establishing accessible mental health support services, fostering a culture of peer support, and ensuring adequate rest and recovery periods for staff. This comprehensive strategy aligns with the ethical imperative to protect staff from foreseeable harm and the duty of care to provide a safe and supportive working environment, as often mandated by organizational policies and international best practices for humanitarian and development work. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to solely rely on external security contractors without integrating internal support mechanisms. This fails to address the psychological and emotional wellbeing of staff, potentially leading to burnout and reduced resilience. It also overlooks the organization’s direct responsibility for staff welfare, shifting the burden without providing holistic care. Another incorrect approach is to implement security measures that are overly restrictive and do not account for the psychological impact on staff. For instance, excessive curfews or limitations on personal movement, while seemingly enhancing security, can foster feelings of isolation and anxiety, undermining staff morale and overall effectiveness. This approach neglects the balance between security and the need for a humane and supportive work environment. A further incorrect approach is to provide minimal or reactive mental health support, only addressing issues after they become critical. This demonstrates a failure in proactive duty of care. Organizations have an ethical and often regulatory obligation to provide preventative and ongoing support, rather than waiting for crises to emerge. This reactive stance can exacerbate existing issues and lead to more severe consequences for individual staff members and the mission’s success. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a risk management framework that integrates security, health, and wellbeing. This involves conducting comprehensive pre-mission assessments, developing detailed operational plans that include security protocols and emergency procedures, and establishing robust communication channels. Simultaneously, a strong emphasis must be placed on mental health support, including pre-deployment training on stress management, access to counseling services during the mission, and post-mission debriefing. Fostering a supportive team environment where staff feel safe to discuss challenges is paramount. Decision-making should be guided by a commitment to the highest ethical standards of care and a thorough understanding of the specific risks associated with austere environments.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for support for a survivor of gender-based violence with the legal and ethical obligations to protect confidentiality and ensure informed consent. The specialist must navigate potential risks to the survivor and others, while also adhering to the strict privacy requirements inherent in health and support services. Careful judgment is required to determine the appropriate level of disclosure and the process for obtaining consent, especially when the survivor may be experiencing trauma. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves prioritizing the survivor’s autonomy and safety by seeking explicit, informed consent before sharing any information. This approach recognizes that survivors have the right to control their personal data and to decide who has access to it. Obtaining informed consent means clearly explaining what information will be shared, with whom, and for what purpose, and ensuring the survivor understands this information and agrees to the disclosure voluntarily. This aligns with ethical principles of respect for persons and autonomy, and regulatory frameworks that mandate data privacy and confidentiality, such as those governing health information and victim support services in North America. The specialist must also assess the survivor’s capacity to consent, offering support and resources to facilitate their decision-making process. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately reporting the survivor’s situation to a family member without their explicit consent, even if the intention is to seek additional support. This violates the survivor’s right to confidentiality and autonomy. It can erode trust, potentially re-traumatize the survivor, and may have legal repercussions under privacy legislation. Another incorrect approach is to assume that because the survivor is seeking help, they implicitly consent to all information being shared with any agency involved in their care. This is a misinterpretation of consent. Informed consent must be specific, voluntary, and understood. Blanket assumptions about consent can lead to breaches of privacy and a failure to uphold the survivor’s rights. A third incorrect approach is to withhold all information from other support services, even when there is a clear benefit to coordinated care and the survivor has indicated a desire for such collaboration. While confidentiality is paramount, a complete refusal to share relevant, non-identifying or anonymized information, or information with explicit consent, can hinder effective support and create silos in service delivery, ultimately not serving the survivor’s best interests. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with understanding the survivor’s immediate needs and safety. This is followed by a thorough assessment of the legal and ethical obligations regarding confidentiality and consent. The specialist must then engage in open and transparent communication with the survivor, explaining their rights and the implications of different disclosure options. The process should be trauma-informed, recognizing the potential impact of gender-based violence on decision-making capacity. When in doubt, seeking guidance from supervisors or legal counsel is a critical step in ensuring ethical and compliant practice.