DP5
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/142#DP5
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP5
Decision question
Was Company X's rejection of Engineer A's additional safety testing recommendation an ethical violation, and did Engineer A's non-acquiescence through resignation satisfy the non-acquiescence obligation under the NSPE Code?
Focus
Company X Safety Testing Rejection Ethical Status and Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Assessment
Option1
Recommend additional safety testing to Company X through formal internal channels, document the safety concern and the engineering basis for it in writing, and resign upon final rejection rather than acquiescing — preserving the non-acquiescence obligation without premature external disclosure
Option2
Recommend additional safety testing internally, and upon rejection escalate immediately to the relevant government agency with a formal safety concern report, on the grounds that the regulatory vacuum and the absence of any external oversight mechanism make immediate external escalation the only effective way to fulfill the proactive risk disclosure obligation
Option3
Recommend additional safety testing internally, and upon rejection accept Company X's cost-driven determination as within the range of reasonable employer discretion in an absent-standards context — continuing employment while documenting the concern for future reference but deferring to the employer's judgment absent a confirmed safety failure or applicable regulatory requirement
Role
Engineer B BER 08-10 MedTech Colleague
TTL
@prefix case142: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/142#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@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#> .
case142:DP5 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP5" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP5" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Was Company X's rejection of Engineer A's additional safety testing recommendation an ethical violation, and did Engineer A's non-acquiescence through resignation satisfy the non-acquiescence obligation under the NSPE Code?" ;
proeth:focus "Company X Safety Testing Rejection Ethical Status and Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Assessment" ;
proeth:option1 "Recommend additional safety testing to Company X through formal internal channels, document the safety concern and the engineering basis for it in writing, and resign upon final rejection rather than acquiescing — preserving the non-acquiescence obligation without premature external disclosure" ;
proeth:option2 "Recommend additional safety testing internally, and upon rejection escalate immediately to the relevant government agency with a formal safety concern report, on the grounds that the regulatory vacuum and the absence of any external oversight mechanism make immediate external escalation the only effective way to fulfill the proactive risk disclosure obligation" ;
proeth:option3 "Recommend additional safety testing internally, and upon rejection accept Company X's cost-driven determination as within the range of reasonable employer discretion in an absent-standards context — continuing employment while documenting the concern for future reference but deferring to the employer's judgment absent a confirmed safety failure or applicable regulatory requirement" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer B BER 08-10 MedTech Colleague" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T23:31:11.285634"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 142 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T23:31:11.285634
Generated by
ProEthica Case 142 Extraction