DP8
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/146#DP8
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP8
Decision question
Does the allegation-adjudication framework from prior BER cases—which required disclosure of an adjudicated professional sanction but permitted non-disclosure of a pending complaint—map onto Engineer A's autism non-disclosure in a way that compels, permits, or is simply inapplicable to his situation?
Focus
Applying the allegation-adjudication distinction from BER 97-11 and BER 03-6 to determine whether Engineer A's autism non-disclosure is analogous to Engineer F's concealment of an adjudicated license revocation, and calibrating the disclosure obligation accordingly
Option1
Treat autism non-disclosure as categorically outside the BER 03-6 disclosure obligation by applying the three-tier hierarchy—adjudicated sanction, pending allegation, protected personal condition—and maintain non-disclosure as ethically permissible
Option2
Apply BER 03-6 by analogy, treating 25 years of non-disclosure across multiple employers as functionally equivalent to active concealment of a professionally relevant condition on employment applications, and disclose proactively to current employer
Option3
Seek a formal BER advisory opinion to clarify whether the allegation-adjudication framework extends to ADA-protected medical conditions before making any disclosure decision, deferring action pending authoritative guidance
Role
Engineer A
TTL
@prefix case146: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/146#> .
@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#> .
case146:DP8 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP8" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP8" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Does the allegation-adjudication framework from prior BER cases—which required disclosure of an adjudicated professional sanction but permitted non-disclosure of a pending complaint—map onto Engineer A's autism non-disclosure in a way that compels, permits, or is simply inapplicable to his situation?" ;
proeth:focus "Applying the allegation-adjudication distinction from BER 97-11 and BER 03-6 to determine whether Engineer A's autism non-disclosure is analogous to Engineer F's concealment of an adjudicated license revocation, and calibrating the disclosure obligation accordingly" ;
proeth:option1 "Treat autism non-disclosure as categorically outside the BER 03-6 disclosure obligation by applying the three-tier hierarchy—adjudicated sanction, pending allegation, protected personal condition—and maintain non-disclosure as ethically permissible" ;
proeth:option2 "Apply BER 03-6 by analogy, treating 25 years of non-disclosure across multiple employers as functionally equivalent to active concealment of a professionally relevant condition on employment applications, and disclose proactively to current employer" ;
proeth:option3 "Seek a formal BER advisory opinion to clarify whether the allegation-adjudication framework extends to ADA-protected medical conditions before making any disclosure decision, deferring action pending authoritative guidance" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T17:18:22.284189"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 146 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T17:18:22.284189
Generated by
ProEthica Case 146 Extraction