DP5

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

DP5

After the client refuses remediation, should Engineer A escalate by formally documenting objection and notifying occupants or public authorities, withdraw from the project, or treat the verbal warning as sufficient discharge of the safety obligation and proceed with delivering the confidential report?

Engineer A, after verbally warning the client of the danger posed by the electrical and mechanical violations and receiving no remedial commitment, must decide whether to passively acquiesce to the client's 'as is' sale directive — treating the verbal warning as a terminal act of compliance — or to escalate through formal dissent, project withdrawal, or direct notification of building occupants. This decision point captures the independent ethical dimension of passive acquiescence under BER Case 84-5 and the question of whether the paramount safety obligation requires Engineer A to consider notification channels beyond regulatory authorities, including the occupants most immediately exposed to the hazard.

After the client refuses remediation, formally document the objection in writing, notify the appropriate public regulatory authorities of the known code violations invoking the Section II.1.c safety exception, and consider direct notification to the building's occupants as an independent channel required by the paramount safety obligation — then withdraw from the engagement if the client objects to these disclosures.

Formally document the objection to the client's 'as is' directive in writing and withdraw from the engagement, declining to deliver the structural report, on the grounds that the scope-of-work and domain-competence limitations constrain Engineer A's authority to demand remediation of electrical and mechanical systems — while stopping short of notifying public authorities or occupants on the basis that the confidentiality agreement and Section III.4 continue to bind after withdrawal.

Treat the verbal warning to the client as a complete discharge of the safety notification duty, note the violations briefly in the confidential structural report to create a written record of awareness, and deliver the report to the client — relying on the faithful agent obligation under Section II.4, the confidentiality agreement, and the domain-competence limitation to justify taking no further escalatory action after the client's refusal.

Engineer A