DP5

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

DP5

Should the Board frame Engineer A's disclosure decision as merely prudent — leaving the engineer with full discretion — or should it hold that the foreseeable relational harm and similar-services materiality cause the prudential and ethical thresholds to converge, making disclosure effectively obligatory?

The Board must determine whether the Prudential Disclosure Recommendation — framing voluntary disclosure as wise but not obligatory — adequately discharges the Faithful Agent Obligation when non-disclosure foreseeably damages the client relationship and undermines the client's capacity for informed consent, or whether the prudential and ethical thresholds converge in the similar-services context such that the distinction between 'wise' and 'required' collapses.

Characterize voluntary disclosure as wise and professionally advisable while stopping short of declaring it obligatory, preserving engineer discretion on the grounds that an unresolved allegation does not rise to the level of established fact that triggers a mandatory faithful agent disclosure duty.

Find that where non-disclosure foreseeably damages the client relationship, undermines informed consent, and is confirmed by the client as a breach of expected trust, the prudential and ethical thresholds converge — making disclosure effectively obligatory in the similar-services context regardless of the complaint's unresolved status.

Hold that the similar-services context combined with the faithful agent obligation creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of disclosure — one that Engineer A could overcome by demonstrating the complaint was frivolous or entirely unrelated to the current engagement — thereby preserving the allegation-adjudication distinction while giving the faithful agent obligation meaningful normative content.

NSPE Board of Ethical Review