DP6
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#DP6
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP6
Decision question
Does the genuine public benefit of the proposed healthcare facility — serving a broader community — alter Engineer A's ethical calculus for disclosure of upstream flood risk or for continued project engagement, and does the competing public goods dimension of this case belong to Engineer A's professional judgment or to regulatory decision-makers?
Focus
How Engineer A should weigh the competing public goods of the healthcare facility against foreseeable upstream flood harm when determining whether the public benefit of the project alters the ethical calculus for disclosure, withdrawal, or continued engagement
Option1
Remain engaged with the project while ensuring the engineering report fully discloses both the upstream flood risk and the competing public goods tension, explicitly framing the policy resolution of those competing goods as a matter for regulatory authorities rather than for Engineer A's unilateral judgment
Option2
Treat the healthcare facility's public benefit as a professionally relevant factor that, when weighed against the probabilistic and temporally uncertain upstream flood harm, justifies proceeding with the design under the applicable regulatory standard without elevating the upstream risk concern beyond a standard project notation — deferring the competing goods resolution to the permitting process without independent advocacy
Option3
Withdraw from the engagement on the grounds that the competing public goods tension — combined with Client B's refusal to fund the specialized analysis — creates an irresolvable conflict between Engineer A's obligations to the upstream community and to the healthcare facility's beneficiaries that Engineer A cannot ethically navigate within the constraints of the current engagement scope
Role
Engineer A
TTL
@prefix case88: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#> .
@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#> .
case88:DP6 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Does the genuine public benefit of the proposed healthcare facility — serving a broader community — alter Engineer A's ethical calculus for disclosure of upstream flood risk or for continued project engagement, and does the competing public goods dimension of this case belong to Engineer A's professional judgment or to regulatory decision-makers?" ;
proeth:focus "How Engineer A should weigh the competing public goods of the healthcare facility against foreseeable upstream flood harm when determining whether the public benefit of the project alters the ethical calculus for disclosure, withdrawal, or continued engagement" ;
proeth:option1 "Remain engaged with the project while ensuring the engineering report fully discloses both the upstream flood risk and the competing public goods tension, explicitly framing the policy resolution of those competing goods as a matter for regulatory authorities rather than for Engineer A's unilateral judgment" ;
proeth:option2 "Treat the healthcare facility's public benefit as a professionally relevant factor that, when weighed against the probabilistic and temporally uncertain upstream flood harm, justifies proceeding with the design under the applicable regulatory standard without elevating the upstream risk concern beyond a standard project notation — deferring the competing goods resolution to the permitting process without independent advocacy" ;
proeth:option3 "Withdraw from the engagement on the grounds that the competing public goods tension — combined with Client B's refusal to fund the specialized analysis — creates an irresolvable conflict between Engineer A's obligations to the upstream community and to the healthcare facility's beneficiaries that Engineer A cannot ethically navigate within the constraints of the current engagement scope" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-26T00:52:37.596096"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 88 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-26T00:52:37.596096
Generated by
ProEthica Case 88 Extraction