DP2
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#DP2
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP2
Decision question
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 advocate for adoption of a protective building code, or does withdrawal alone discharge Engineer A's professional duty to the public?
Focus
Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations — specifically whether withdrawal from the project exhausts Engineer A's professional duty or whether the absence of a building code in the jurisdiction triggers an affirmative obligation to notify local government officials and advocate for protective building codes, so that the identified storm surge risk is surfaced to a body capable of acting on it.
Option1
After withdrawing from the project, notify appropriate local government officials or public authorities of the identified storm surge risk and the absence of any regulatory standard adequate to address it, and separately advocate to those officials for adoption of a building code incorporating the 100-year storm surge elevation standard
Option2
After withdrawing from the project, treat withdrawal as fully discharging Engineer A's professional obligation — on the grounds that Engineer A's duty runs to the client relationship and that post-withdrawal notification to public authorities exceeds the scope of the engagement and risks breaching client confidentiality regarding project-specific findings
Option3
After withdrawing from the project, advocate to local government officials for storm surge building codes in general terms applicable to the broader geographic region — without disclosing Client A's project-specific information — on the grounds that general code advocacy satisfies the public welfare obligation while preserving the boundary between the client engagement and the public sphere
Role
Engineer
TTL
@prefix case87: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case87:DP2 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "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 advocate for adoption of a protective building code, or does withdrawal alone discharge Engineer A's professional duty to the public?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations — specifically whether withdrawal from the project exhausts Engineer A's professional duty or whether the absence of a building code in the jurisdiction triggers an affirmative obligation to notify local government officials and advocate for protective building codes, so that the identified storm surge risk is surfaced to a body capable of acting on it." ;
proeth:option1 "After withdrawing from the project, notify appropriate local government officials or public authorities of the identified storm surge risk and the absence of any regulatory standard adequate to address it, and separately advocate to those officials for adoption of a building code incorporating the 100-year storm surge elevation standard" ;
proeth:option2 "After withdrawing from the project, treat withdrawal as fully discharging Engineer A's professional obligation — on the grounds that Engineer A's duty runs to the client relationship and that post-withdrawal notification to public authorities exceeds the scope of the engagement and risks breaching client confidentiality regarding project-specific findings" ;
proeth:option3 "After withdrawing from the project, advocate to local government officials for storm surge building codes in general terms applicable to the broader geographic region — without disclosing Client A's project-specific information — on the grounds that general code advocacy satisfies the public welfare obligation while preserving the boundary between the client engagement and the public sphere" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T16:34:23.758425"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 87 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T16:34:23.758425
Generated by
ProEthica Case 87 Extraction