DP6

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

DP6

At what point in the timeline did Doe's ethical obligation to disclose his adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority arise, and does the answer affect the scope and sufficiency of the disclosure he must now make?

Whether Doe's proactive disclosure obligation to the State Pollution Control Authority arose at the moment his adverse findings were concluded and the suppression instruction was issued — before any public hearing was scheduled — and whether the hearing was merely a confirmatory trigger of a pre-existing duty or the origin of a new one, with implications for the timing, scope, and ethical sufficiency of any disclosure Doe ultimately makes.

Immediately upon learning of the hearing, submit a complete written report of adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority and acknowledge that this disclosure should have been made at the time of contract termination, offering the authority a full account of the timeline including the suppression instruction

Treat the public hearing as the operative triggering event and limit disclosure to correcting the specific false data XYZ presented at the hearing, without volunteering information about the earlier suppression instruction or characterizing the disclosure as satisfaction of a pre-existing duty

Seek guidance from the NSPE or a professional ethics board before disclosing to the authority, treating the ambiguity about the timing and scope of the disclosure obligation as a genuine professional uncertainty that warrants formal ethical consultation before action

Engineer Doe