DP1

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

DP1

After the MWC overrides their joint safety recommendation, how should Engineers A and B formally communicate their objections to the commission — and what must that communication accomplish to satisfy both the faithful agent notification duty and the public welfare paramount obligation?

Engineers A and B must decide how to formally communicate their professional objections to the MWC after the commission voted to override their joint recommendation to delay the water source change pending completion of corrosion control improvements. The core question is whether formal written notification to the MWC — advising that the project will not succeed in protecting the public — is sufficient to discharge their obligations, or whether that notification must be explicitly coupled with a stated intention to escalate to state regulatory authorities.

Deliver a formal joint written communication to the MWC that explicitly states the project will not succeed in protecting the public from lead contamination, reiterates the safety objection to the accelerated timeline, and announces the engineers' intention to make a formal presentation to the state regulatory agency if the MWC does not reverse course

Deliver a formal joint written communication to the MWC documenting the project failure risk and safety objection, treating that notification as the complete discharge of professional obligations under the faithful agent duty, without announcing any intention to escalate to regulatory authorities

Deliver separate individual written communications to the MWC — rather than a coordinated joint communication — each documenting the respective engineer's safety objection and project failure assessment, on the basis that each engineer's independent professional obligation does not require joint authorship of the notification

Engineers A and B