DP2

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

DP2

After the client refused remediation, should Engineer A have escalated to public authorities or formally withdrawn from the project, or was a brief mention of the violations in the confidential structural report a sufficient discharge of his ethical obligation?

Having verbally warned the client of the danger and received the client's 'as is' sale directive, Engineer A must decide whether passive acquiescence — limited to a brief mention of the violations in a confidential structural report — constitutes adequate discharge of his ethical obligation, or whether the NSPE Code requires affirmative escalation beyond client notification when professional judgment on a life-safety matter is overruled.

Following the client's refusal to remediate, notify appropriate public authorities (building code enforcement, fire marshal, or housing authority) of the known electrical and mechanical code violations, recognizing that Section II.1.a requires escalation when professional judgment on life-endangering matters is overruled by the client.

Formally withdraw from the engagement after the client refuses remediation, documenting the objection in writing, on the grounds that continued participation would constitute going along with a safety-compromising decision — while treating the confidentiality agreement as still barring external disclosure to public authorities.

Complete the structural engagement, include a written record of the client's disclosure and Engineer A's verbal warning in the confidential structural report, and take no further action — treating the written documentation as a sufficient discharge of the notification obligation given the scope-of-work limitation and the confidentiality agreement.

Engineer