While person-centered care aims to influence policymakers' rules and regulations to improve the care of individuals worldwide, there is a notable lack of exploration of this concept in the context of Disaster and Public Health Emergencies (DPHE) as an alternative ethical approach. In this study, we provided a nuanced understanding of the advantages and challenges associated with various ethical approaches in emergencies and mass casualty scenarios to enhance patient care. The ethical approaches examined included Mechanistic Medicine, Utilitarianism, and Person-Centered Care. A survey, developed through several rounds of the Delphi methodology, consisted of 22 statements and was administered to 39 expert participants from nine different countries. The results of the questionnaire, along with participants' comments, were analyzed. The findings indicate that practitioners tend to employ a combination of diverse ethical approaches when managing victims of disasters and public health emergencies. The choice of approach is context- and situation-dependent, often responding primarily to the nature of the underlying etiology, which allows for the integration of diverse approaches, including individualized care. The outcomes of this study will contribute to future ethical discussions surrounding person-centered care in situations with limited resources and will aid in the development of essential ethical and educational guidelines.