DP3

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

DP3

If the automobile manufacturer overrides Engineer A's harm-minimization recommendation and proceeds with a passenger-priority algorithm that foreseeably creates fatal risk for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcycle riders, what actions must Engineer A take — and does Engineer A's consultant status affect the scope or sequence of those obligations?

Engineer A's residual obligations when the automobile manufacturer overrides the harm-minimization recommendation and elects to program the vehicle to prioritize passenger safety — including whether Engineer A must pursue graduated internal escalation, decline to certify the system, or evaluate external reporting obligations

Formally document the safety disagreement in writing addressed to the manufacturer's responsible decision-makers, clearly stating that the passenger-priority algorithm creates foreseeable fatal risk to third parties inconsistent with the public welfare paramount obligation; assess whether the system crosses the certification threshold under Code II.1.b and decline to certify if it does; and evaluate whether the severity and foreseeability of third-party harm triggers external reporting obligations if internal escalation fails

Formally document the safety disagreement in writing, deliver it to the manufacturer's project lead, and — upon being overruled — treat the internal escalation obligation as discharged given the compressed escalation sequence available in a consultant relationship; continue participating in the project in an advisory capacity without certifying the system, on the ground that declining to certify without an applicable regulatory standard to anchor the refusal would exceed the scope of the consultant's professional mandate

Document the safety disagreement in the final risk assessment report, recommend that the manufacturer obtain an independent ethics and safety review of the passenger-priority algorithm before deployment, and withdraw from the consulting engagement if the manufacturer proceeds without that review — treating withdrawal as the appropriate professional response that preserves Engineer A's integrity without triggering external reporting obligations that the NSPE Code reserves for more severe and imminent public safety threats

Engineer A — Consultant to Automobile Manufacturer