DP3

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

DP3

Should Engineer A covertly advise Technician B on sanitary system management as a safety-preservation measure, or should she treat covert advisory as an ethically insufficient substitute for the mandatory external reporting and genuine project withdrawal obligations she has not yet fulfilled?

Having been formally removed from responsible charge and placed on probation, Engineer A has not reported to the state water pollution control authority. She is now aware that Technician B, who lacks the competence to manage the sanitary system safely, is solely responsible for a system facing imminent overflow. Engineer A must decide whether to continue providing technical guidance to Technician B covertly — without Administrator C's knowledge — as a means of mitigating immediate safety risk while avoiding termination.

Continue providing technical guidance to Technician B secretly, reasoning that this partially mitigates immediate public safety risk in the absence of any other available mechanism, while avoiding the termination that overt advisory or external reporting would trigger.

Terminate all professional involvement with the sanitary system — including covert advisory — and formally notify Administrator C and appropriate authorities of the withdrawal, recognizing that a unilateral internal declaration of non-responsibility does not constitute genuine withdrawal under the NSPE Code.

Report the imminent overflow condition and the unlicensed responsible charge arrangement to the state water pollution control authority, simultaneously disclosing that Technician B has been operating without licensed engineering oversight, thereby fulfilling both the statutory reporting obligation and the genuine withdrawal requirement.

City Engineer / Director of Public Works