DP6

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

DP6

After withdrawing from the project because Client A refuses the 100-year storm surge standard, does Engineer A bear an affirmative obligation to notify local government officials of the identified risk and advocate for a protective building code — obligations that survive the termination of the client relationship — or does withdrawal discharge Engineer A's professional responsibilities, leaving further action to Engineer A's discretion?

Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations to notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and advocate for a protective building code in a no-code jurisdiction, where withdrawal alone leaves the public safety risk entirely unaddressed

After withdrawing, proactively notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and the absence of a protective building code, provide the written technical record of the 100-year recommendation and Client A's refusal to support regulatory action, and engage in ongoing advocacy for a jurisdiction-wide building code incorporating the 100-year standard

After withdrawing, engage local government officials in general terms to advocate for storm surge building codes in the jurisdiction without disclosing Client A's project-specific information, treating the broader regulatory gap as the appropriate subject of public advocacy while preserving residual confidentiality obligations to the former client

Treat withdrawal as discharging Engineer A's primary professional obligations, retain the written documentation of the recommendation and refusal as a professional record available if later called upon, but defer notification to public authorities unless Engineer A is directly contacted by a regulatory body or future investigator — on the grounds that the risk finding's preliminary algorithmic basis does not yet meet the threshold for mandatory governmental disclosure

Engineer A