The Online Ethics Center for Engineering & Science - Department of ...

Online Ethics Center: NSPE Case No. 98-9: Duty to Report Unsafe Conditions/Client Request for Secrecysanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructingTechnician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary systemand report directly to City Administrator.Although she had already gone beyond her immediate superior bydiscussing the matter with other city officials and had been relieved ofresponsibility for the operation, the Board maintained that Engineer Ahad a further responsibility to report a matter endangering the publicsafety and health to the proper authorities.While the Board noted earlier that the Code makes no direct exception tothe language contained in Section III.4., as we have stated on numerousoccasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum orindependent of the other provisions of the Code. Section II.1.c. providesadditional guidance in this case making it clear that the Engineer A hasan ethical obligation to refrain from disclosing information which sheacquires during the course of providing professional services to the clientunless first obtaining the client's consent to disclose. Importantly,however, this section also includes a relevant exception that allows theengineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providingprofessional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized orrequired by law or by the Code. In other words, if the engineer has a legalor ethical responsibility to disclose the information in question, theengineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality.Much of the same reasoning applies in the present case. Under thereasoning of BER Case 88-6, the engineer had an obligation to gofurther. As earlier stated, we believe under the facts, Section II.1.c.should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a. The latter section refersto the primary obligation of the engineer to protect the safety, health,property and welfare of the public. The obligation of the engineer torefrain from revealing confidential information, data, facts concerning thebusiness affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significantethical obligation. We further believe that matters of public health andsafety must take precedence. Again, the Code of Ethics is clear on thispoint -- Section I.1. employs the word "paramount" to describe theobligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.Engineer A's actions in promptly reporting his findings to the client andproviding a corrective design were both ethical and commendable.Nevertheless, the necessary repairs require months before the building'sstability could be ensured. During that time, the building's occupantsalong with a large area of the city, remained in jeopardy, with only anuntested evacuation plan protecting them from possible disaster.The desire to avoid public panic is certainly a legitimate factor indeciding upon a course of action. However, withholding criticalinformation from thousands of individuals whose safety is compromisedover a significant period of time is not a valid alternative for theconditions presented.It would seem that Engineer A should have informed the client and thearchitect that, while he has an obligation of confidentiality to them ashttp://onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/nspe98-9.html (4 of 6)10/25/2005 9:07:58 AM