For one it informs the "would the doctor actually have done it" question, but more importantly I think we'd find those guidelines are written way more context than you or I have - what these situations are typically like in practice, what outcomes have been seen, what pros & cons need to be weighed

And I think the question we'd need to ask next is "ok so are these guidelines *actually* morally abhorrent, or are they fine, or are they not horrific but still need improvement", and THEN if the first or last one are true I think the next question would be "what's the best way to improve/fix them"