BER_Case_89-7
Rs · Resource
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/100#BER_Case_89-7
Properties
Instance of
Confidence
0.98
Created by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Document title
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 89-7
Importance
high
Used by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about confidentiality vs. public safety
Used in context
Primary analogical precedent: engineer retained to investigate structural integrity of occupied apartment building under confidentiality agreement; Board found it unethical not to report safety violations to public authorities; distinguished from present case on multiple grounds
Version
1989
Source Evidence
Source text
An example of this basic ethical dichotomy was considered by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review in Case No. 89-7 (which the Board also applied in Case No. 97-5).
Text references
An example of this basic ethical dichotomy was considered by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review in Case No. 89-7 (which the Board also applied in Case No. 97-5).
In deciding it was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities, the Board noted...
the facts and circumstances in Case No. 89-7, while somewhat similar in nature, are significantly different than the facts in the present case
TTL
@prefix case100: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/100#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case100:BER_Case_89-7 a proeth:BERCasePrecedent,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "BER_Case_89-7" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ;
proeth:confidence "0.98" ;
proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "100" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:documenttitle "NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 89-7" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T08:23:12.118675+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "100" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T08:23:12.118675+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:resourceclass "BER Case Precedent" ;
proeth:sourcetext "An example of this basic ethical dichotomy was considered by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review in Case No. 89-7 (which the Board also applied in Case No. 97-5)." ;
proeth:textreferences "An example of this basic ethical dichotomy was considered by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review in Case No. 89-7 (which the Board also applied in Case No. 97-5).",
"In deciding it was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities, the Board noted...",
"the facts and circumstances in Case No. 89-7, while somewhat similar in nature, are significantly different than the facts in the present case" ;
proeth:usedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning about confidentiality vs. public safety" ;
proeth:usedincontext "Primary analogical precedent: engineer retained to investigate structural integrity of occupied apartment building under confidentiality agreement; Board found it unethical not to report safety violations to public authorities; distinguished from present case on multiple grounds" ;
proeth:version "1989" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 100 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T08:48:56.174991"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 100 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
100
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T08:23:12.118675+00:00
First case
100
Generated
2026-03-01T08:23:12.118675+00:00
Attributed to
Case 100 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T08:48:56.174991
Generated by
ProEthica Case 100 Extraction