Oh, the joy of navigating the treacherous waters of medical ethics, where every decision is a potential plot twist in a medical drama. Here we have a thrilling case report of a 46-year-old gentleman who, in a stroke of misfortune, not only suffered an intracerebral hemorrhage but also decided to dabble with COVID-19. Now, in a normal world, one might say, “Give the man anticoagulants for the virus!” But alas, in the upside-down world of neuro-anesthesia, that’s akin to throwing a lit match into a fireworks factory.

So, what do our intrepid heroes do? They call a meeting—a joint conference, no less—because nothing screams “action” like a room full of clinicians debating the ethical conundrum of the century. With the suspense of a ticking time bomb, they ponder over ethical principles like they’re choosing the red or blue wire for defusal.

In a move that would make Solomon proud, they decide not to give the anticoagulants. Cue the gasps! They invoke the principle of “risk-benefit balance,” which, in layman’s terms, means “let’s not make things worse.” They also throw in the prima facie principle, because first impressions are everything, and the minus malum principle, because less harm sounds like a good idea. And let’s not forget the double effect principle, which is basically the medical version of “you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs,” except in this case, they’re trying really hard not to break any eggs at all.

In the end, they pat themselves on the back for considering the medicolegal aspects, because nothing says “job well done” like covering your own behind. And so, our patient is spared the anticoagulants, in the hope that the scales of medical justice tip in favor of not bleeding in the brain. Bravo, team. Bravo.