Restraints are ethically and legally controversial, and therefore should be considered:

In the context of ethical and legal considerations surrounding the use of restraints, viewing them as a last resort to ensure safety is a fundamentally sound approach. Restraints are typically employed in situations where there is a significant risk of harm to the patient or others. The notion of safety encompasses protecting the patient from self-injury, preventing them from harming others, or ensuring they do not interfere with necessary medical treatments.

By emphasizing that restraints should be used only when absolutely necessary, this perspective aligns with ethical guidelines that prioritize patient autonomy and dignity while balancing the need for safety in a healthcare environment. When restraints are considered only after exploring all other alternatives for patient management, it reflects a commitment to ethical practice.

While the other options present important considerations—such as the appropriateness of restraints for pediatric patients or their expected role in critical care—they do not encapsulate the broader ethical imperative of using restraints judiciously. Restraints are inherently controversial, and their implementation should always be guided by the principle of ensuring the safety of the patient and the treatment environment, making option B the correct answer in this context.