DP6

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

DP6

Does the City's explicit instruction to conduct inequitable public engagement sessions constitute a client directive that Engineer M is obligated to refuse, and does Engineer M's paramount duty to hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount require refusing to allow the project to proceed on the basis of a fraudulent engagement record regardless of the City's economic, political, and social justifications?

The City's ethical culpability as a directing party that explicitly instructed Firm DBA to conduct public engagement sessions in a manner foreseeably excluding Community P, and whether Engineer M bears an independent obligation to refuse City directives that foreseeably channel harm toward a historically underserved community — irrespective of economic, political, or social justifications offered by the City.

Refuse to allow the project to proceed on the basis of the fraudulent engagement record, advise the City formally in writing that the engagement process as directed cannot produce a report Engineer M can professionally endorse, and treat the City's economic, political, and social justifications as insufficient to override the paramount public welfare obligation

Defer to the City's economic, political, and social justifications for the inequitable engagement process and continue serving the City's interest in advancing the project, treating the client directive as a legitimate exercise of client authority that Engineer M is obligated to follow

Engineer M