It was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that if prompt measures are not taken to correct the problem, he will be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency. Instead, Engineer A should have sought to determine what internal steps are being taken to address the concerns. However, if after making additional inquiries, Engineer A determined that no meaningful action was being taken to address the issue, Engineer A should have explored internal mechanisms within MedTech to seek further recourse regarding this issue. Only if such efforts did not produce satisfactory results should Engineer A consider exploring external avenues for action.

This case presents one of the classical ethical dilemmas faced by engineers, which is the fundamental conflict between the obligation to hold paramount the public health and safety and some another key provision of the NSPE Code of Ethics—here the obligation to act for each employer or client as “faithful agent or trustee.” As is often the case with these types of situations, sometimes mitigating factors and circumstances impact upon one’s understanding of this conflict (e.g., the knowledge held by the engineer, the risks involved, level of personal involvement, actions taken and not taken by individual the engineer/employer, and other factors). The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered a variety of cases involving similar considerations. Among one of the earlier cases of this type was BER Case No. 76-4. In that case, the XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it had 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water. XYZ Corporation was also advised of the minimum standard that must be met. In an effort to convince the authority that the receiving body of water, after receiving the manufacturing wastes, would still meet established environmental standards, the corporation employed Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report. After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Engineer Doe concluded that the discharge from the plant would lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards. He further concluded that corrective action would be very costly. Engineer Doe verbally advised the XYZ Corporation of his findings. Subsequently, the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation. Thereafter, Engineer Doe learned that the authority had called a public hearing and th...

Engineer A, an experienced professional engineer, is employed by MedTech, a company that manufacturers medical equipment. A key company product is respirators that are used in hospitals. Engineer B, a company colleague of Engineer A, asks Engineer A to evaluate a respirator designed by MedTech for infant use. Following his review, although not an expert on respirators, Engineer A determines that a relief valve intended to protect against overpressure being applied to the infant’s lungs may have been incorrectly placed so that under certain circumstances, an infant could potentially experience dangerously high pressure levels—although no incidents have been reported. Correcting the error would involve stopping the manufacturing process for part of a week to correct problem. Engineer A brings the issue and his proposed solution to the attention of the appropriate manager, who is not an engineer, and Engineer A assumes that the matter will be taken care of immediately. However, a month later Engineer A learns from Engineer B that nothing has been done to correct the issue. Hundreds of new respirators are now on the market, and Engineer A is concerned about the increasing likelihood of a tragic event. Engineer A again urges the manager to take immediate action. When the manager indicates that the matter is still being looked into by a design team, Engineer A indicates that if prompt measures are not taken to correct the problem, he will be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency.

Was it ethical for Engineer A to indicate that if prompt measures are not taken to correct the problem, he will be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency?