DP2

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP2

Should Engineer A file the complaint against Engineer B as a signed, identified complaint or as an anonymous complaint, and does the choice between these forms affect the ethical adequacy of the reporting act?

Having decided to file a complaint with the state engineering licensure board, Engineer A must choose the form in which to submit it. Engineer A has concerns about potential professional retaliation and competitive perception if identified, but also recognizes that a signed complaint is the professionally preferred approach and that anonymous filing may weaken the board's ability to investigate and prosecute the complaint. The board has an established procedure for accepting anonymous complaints.

Submit the complaint to the state licensing board with Engineer A's full name and contact information, enabling the board to call upon Engineer A for testimony and follow-up, satisfying fundamental fairness norms regarding Engineer B's right to know the accuser's identity, and demonstrating the professional courage that the self-policing character of engineering demands.

Submit the complaint without identifying information, relying on the board's established procedure for accepting anonymous complaints, satisfying the minimum ethical reporting obligation while accepting the practical limitation that the absence of an identified complainant may weaken the board's investigative and prosecutorial capacity.

Decline to file any complaint — signed or anonymous — because Engineer A's concerns about retaliation make identified filing feel too risky and anonymous filing feels professionally inadequate, effectively allowing the apparent serious violation to go unreported.

Engineer A — Reporting Licensed Professional Engineer