DP15

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

DP15

After withdrawing from the project, does Engineer A bear an affirmative obligation to notify local government officials or public authorities of the identified storm surge risk and to advocate for a protective building code, or is withdrawal a sufficient discharge of Engineer A's professional duty to the public?

Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations to notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and to advocate for a protective building code in a no-code jurisdiction, given that withdrawal alone does not eliminate the foreseeable danger to future residents

After withdrawing, notify local government officials or relevant public authorities of the identified storm surge risk and the absence of any regulatory standard adequate to address it, using the written documentation of the recommendation and Client A's refusal as the basis for that notification, and separately advocate for adoption of a building code incorporating the 100-year storm surge standard

After withdrawing, engage local government in general terms to advocate for a storm surge building code in the jurisdiction without disclosing Client A's project-specific information, on the basis that the confidentiality dimension of the former client relationship constrains the scope of permissible post-withdrawal disclosure

Treat withdrawal as a complete discharge of Engineer A's professional obligations in this matter, retain the written documentation as a professional record available if later called upon, and take no further affirmative action toward public authorities on the basis that Engineer A's duty to the public was fulfilled by refusing to participate in the unsafe design and that further action exceeds the scope of Engineer A's post-engagement responsibility

Engineer A