{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_Initial_Non-Disclosure_of_Autism",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Voluntarily disclose the Asperger\u0027s diagnosis to the first employer at the time of hiring",
    "Seek legal counsel or consult an ethics board before starting employment to understand disclosure obligations",
    "Disclose selectively only when requesting specific workplace accommodations"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer A sought to protect himself from potential workplace discrimination, stigma, or bias associated with an autism spectrum diagnosis, while also asserting his belief\u2014validated by 25 years of successful practice\u2014that his condition was a private medical matter irrelevant to his professional competence.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Voluntary disclosure at hiring could have triggered discrimination (legal or subtle), altered hiring decisions, or conversely fostered early workplace support\u2014but would have foreclosed the later ethical dilemma entirely by establishing a transparent precedent from the outset.",
    "Consulting an ethics board or attorney early would likely have confirmed that no legal or ethical obligation to disclose existed, potentially resolving the internal conflict before it arose and providing documented justification for non-disclosure.",
    "Disclosing only when seeking accommodations would have created a middle path\u2014privacy maintained until functionally necessary\u2014but could have raised questions about why disclosure came mid-employment, potentially complicating trust dynamics with employers."
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Introduces the foundational question of whether non-disclosure of a personal, non-performance-affecting medical condition constitutes an ethical violation, distinguishing passive non-disclosure from active deception\u2014a critical distinction in professional ethics education.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Personal privacy and autonomy vs. a nascent concern about whether concealment of a personal characteristic could constitute deception; self-preservation vs. transparency with employers; the right to medical privacy vs. any perceived duty of candor in professional relationships.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Long-term career viability, personal dignity, workplace inclusion, and the precedent-setting interpretation of what \u0027deceptive acts\u0027 means under a professional code of ethics; risk of discrimination if disclosed, risk of perceived ethical violation if not.",
  "proeth:description": "At the start of his engineering career, Engineer A made a deliberate decision not to disclose his Asperger\u0027s Syndrome to his first employer(s), establishing a persistent pattern of non-disclosure that would carry forward across multiple employers over 25 years.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Establishment of a long-term pattern of non-disclosure that could later be characterized as deceptive",
    "Potential future tension between personal privacy and professional ethics obligations"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Competent practice of engineering (condition did not impair performance)",
    "Protection of own legal rights under disability protections"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Personal right to privacy regarding medical conditions",
    "Self-preservation and career protection",
    "ADA legal protections against disability discrimination"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Professional Engineer, early career)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Professional transparency vs. personal privacy and career protection",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Engineer A prioritized personal privacy and career security, implicitly treating the condition as a personal matter unrelated to professional competence\u2014a position the Board later validated"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure employment and avoid potential bias or discrimination based on a neurological condition that Engineer A did not believe affected his professional capabilities",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Self-awareness of condition",
    "Judgment about relevance of personal information to professional role"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "25+ years ago, at career start",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Arguably NSPE Code \u0027avoid deceptive acts\u0027 under a broad interpretation, though the Board ultimately rejected this framing for medical conditions unrelated to engineering practice"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Initial Non-Disclosure of Autism"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_Non-Disclosure_at_Current_Employer",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Use the new employment as a deliberate fresh start and disclose the diagnosis during onboarding",
    "Disclose only to HR confidentially to document the condition without making it widely known",
    "Consult the NSPE Code of Ethics proactively before accepting the position to assess any disclosure obligation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Having established a 20-year pattern of non-disclosure that had never caused professional harm or complaint, Engineer A continued the same approach at his current employer out of consistency, self-protection, and a settled belief that his diagnosis was irrelevant to his engineering performance and not the employer\u0027s business.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Disclosing during onboarding would have established transparency early, potentially enabling workplace accommodations and eliminating the later ethical anxiety\u2014but carried real risk of altered treatment or hiring reconsideration depending on employer attitudes.",
    "Confidential HR disclosure would have balanced privacy with institutional awareness, potentially protecting Engineer A legally while limiting stigma risk\u2014a compromise that might have preempted the later ethical crisis entirely.",
    "Proactively consulting the NSPE Code before accepting the position would have engaged the ethical question in a lower-stakes moment, likely concluding non-disclosure was permissible and providing Engineer A with a reasoned, documented ethical foundation for his choice."
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Illustrates how repeated decisions can harden into unexamined habits, and raises the pedagogical question of whether the passage of time and professional success retroactively validates an ethically ambiguous choice or merely delays its scrutiny.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "The accumulated weight of a long-standing personal policy vs. the implicit trust relationship formed at the start of new employment; loyalty to a consistent personal standard vs. the fresh opportunity to establish transparency with a new employer; privacy rights vs. full candor in a new professional relationship.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "The specific employment relationship now under examination; the five-year investment of trust between Engineer A and his current employer; the risk that future disclosure will feel more like a revelation of concealment than an exercise of privacy.",
  "proeth:description": "Five years ago, when accepting his current position, Engineer A again deliberately chose not to disclose his Asperger\u0027s Syndrome, continuing the established pattern of non-disclosure with full awareness of his condition and its concealment.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Continued non-disclosure creates a foundation that, if later revealed, could be perceived as a long-standing omission",
    "Limits Engineer A\u0027s ability to request accommodations if ever needed without revealing prior non-disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Competent and successful engineering practice over the subsequent 5 years",
    "No material harm to employer or clients attributable to the non-disclosed condition"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Personal right to privacy",
    "ADA legal protections",
    "Relevance of disclosed information to professional performance"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Professional Engineer, current employer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Employer transparency vs. privacy and career protection at a new organization",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Engineer A prioritized privacy and career security in a new employment context, a decision the Board found ethically permissible given the condition\u0027s lack of relevance to engineering practice"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure current employment without triggering potential bias or discrimination from a new employer unfamiliar with his track record",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Judgment about relevance of personal health information to professional role",
    "Knowledge of employment law and professional ethics obligations"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "5 years ago, at onboarding with current employer",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Potentially NSPE Code \u0027avoid deceptive acts\u0027 under a broad reading, though Board discussion distinguishes this from conduct-related concealment"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Non-Disclosure at Current Employer"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_Attending_Autism_Support_Conference",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Attend the conference but consciously filter the self-disclosure advocacy as inapplicable to his professional context",
    "Not attend the conference, maintaining his existing equilibrium without exposure to challenging perspectives",
    "Engage directly with the speaker or conference organizers to discuss the professional engineering context specifically"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer A likely attended the conference out of personal connection to the autism community, a desire for peer support, or professional development interest\u2014not necessarily with the intent to reconsider his disclosure stance. The conference represented a voluntary engagement with a community whose advocacy norms differed from his own settled practice.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Filtering the advocacy as context-specific would have allowed Engineer A to benefit from community connection without triggering the ethical crisis, though it might represent a missed opportunity for genuine ethical reflection.",
    "Not attending would have preserved his existing settled state but denied him the community engagement and the ultimately clarifying ethical inquiry that followed\u2014a case where avoidance forecloses growth.",
    "Direct engagement with the speaker about engineering-specific disclosure norms might have produced a more nuanced conversation about professional vs. social disclosure contexts, potentially resolving his uncertainty more efficiently."
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates how external influences\u2014conferences, peer communities, advocacy movements\u2014can catalyze ethical re-examination of long-settled personal decisions, and raises the question of whether ethical obligations should be derived from professional codes, community norms, or individual conscience.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Community-derived social norms and self-advocacy ideology vs. individually reasoned personal privacy decisions; the influence of peer and speaker persuasion vs. autonomous ethical reasoning; collective advocacy values vs. individual professional risk assessment.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Engineer A\u0027s settled psychological equilibrium around his non-disclosure; the risk of being persuaded into an action (disclosure) that may not be ethically required and could carry professional consequences; the value of community belonging vs. professional self-interest.",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A made a volitional decision to attend an autism support conference, exposing himself to self-advocacy perspectives that directly prompted his subsequent ethical reconsideration of his non-disclosure stance.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Exposure to self-advocacy messaging that would challenge his existing non-disclosure posture",
    "Triggering a re-examination of his professional ethics obligations under the NSPE Code"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Personal self-care and community engagement",
    "Openness to information relevant to his condition and professional life"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Self-advocacy and personal dignity (as presented at the conference)",
    "NSPE Code Section III.1.f.: treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Professional Engineer, current employer)",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Seek community, information, and support related to his autism diagnosis; engage with perspectives on living and working as an autistic professional",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Personal initiative and self-awareness"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Recent, prior to present ethical deliberation",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Attending Autism Support Conference"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_Consulting_NSPE_Code_on_Disclosure",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Consult a professional ethics attorney or the NSPE Board of Ethical Review directly rather than self-interpreting the Code",
    "Consult a disability rights organization to understand the legal and ethical landscape from a civil rights perspective",
    "Accept the conference speaker\u0027s framing uncritically and proceed directly to disclosure without Code consultation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Prompted by the conference speaker\u0027s advocacy, Engineer A experienced genuine moral discomfort and sought authoritative guidance from the most relevant professional ethical framework available to him\u2014the NSPE Code\u2014to determine whether his longstanding behavior was defensible or required correction.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Consulting the BER directly would have produced an authoritative, documented interpretation\u2014likely the same conclusion as the case ultimately reaches\u2014but with greater confidence and less personal interpretive burden on Engineer A.",
    "A disability rights consultation would have foregrounded the ADA framework and anti-discrimination protections, potentially clarifying that disclosure is a right, not an obligation, and that non-disclosure is legally protected\u2014adding a legal dimension to the ethical analysis.",
    "Accepting the speaker\u0027s framing without Code consultation would have bypassed the professional ethics framework entirely, potentially leading to an unnecessary disclosure driven by social advocacy norms rather than genuine professional ethical obligations."
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Central teaching moment about how to interpret professional codes of ethics\u2014specifically the difference between active deception (making false statements) and passive non-disclosure of personal information, and the importance of reading ethical provisions in context rather than in isolation.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "The \u0027avoid deceptive acts\u0027 provision\u0027s literal scope vs. its intended application; rule-based ethical compliance vs. contextual ethical judgment; the anxiety of potential retrospective wrongdoing vs. the confidence of a privacy-rights interpretation; deference to codified professional norms vs. personal moral reasoning.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Engineer A\u0027s professional self-understanding and moral identity; the possibility of discovering a genuine ethical obligation requiring difficult corrective action; the integrity of the NSPE Code as a practical guidance instrument; the risk of either over- or under-interpreting an ethical provision.",
  "proeth:description": "Following the conference, Engineer A deliberately engaged with the NSPE Code of Ethics\u2014specifically the \u0027avoid deceptive acts\u0027 provision\u2014to evaluate whether his longstanding non-disclosure of his autism constituted an ethical violation requiring corrective action.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Self-scrutiny could lead to a conclusion that disclosure is ethically required, forcing a difficult career decision",
    "Engaging with the Code could surface obligations Engineer A had not previously considered, increasing personal ethical burden"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Proactive ethical self-examination consistent with professional responsibility",
    "Engagement with the governing professional code as a licensed engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "NSPE Code of Ethics: avoid deceptive acts",
    "Professional integrity and self-regulation",
    "Duty to understand and apply the ethical standards of one\u0027s profession"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Professional Engineer, current employer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Ethical compliance with NSPE Code vs. personal privacy and career protection",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Engineer A recognized the tension but could not resolve it unilaterally, prompting the ethical review that ultimately concluded his non-disclosure was a personal privacy matter rather than a Code violation"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate and reflective",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Determine whether his non-disclosure of Asperger\u0027s Syndrome was ethically permissible or whether the NSPE Code obligated him to disclose to his employer",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical reasoning and Code interpretation",
    "Self-reflection and professional judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Recent, following autism support conference attendance",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Consulting NSPE Code on Disclosure"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_Deliberating_Whether_to_Disclose_Autism",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Decide not to disclose, grounded in the BER\u0027s conclusion that non-disclosure is a personal privacy matter and not an ethical violation",
    "Disclose voluntarily to his current employer as a personal values choice, independent of any ethical obligation",
    "Disclose only to a trusted supervisor or HR confidentially, as a partial accommodation to the self-advocacy perspective without full organizational disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer A is experiencing genuine moral uncertainty\u2014caught between the self-advocacy norms of the autism community, his interpretation of the NSPE Code, the weight of 25 years of consistent non-disclosure, and the practical fear of professional consequences. He is seeking resolution of an internal conflict that has disrupted a previously settled personal policy.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Choosing not to disclose\u2014supported by the BER conclusion\u2014would resolve the ethical anxiety with a reasoned, code-consistent justification and allow Engineer A to continue his established practice with moral clarity rather than guilt.",
    "Voluntary disclosure as a personal values choice, explicitly framed as not ethically required, would honor the self-advocacy perspective while preserving Engineer A\u0027s agency\u2014but carries real professional risk and permanently changes the employment relationship dynamic.",
    "Confidential partial disclosure represents a compromise that might satisfy Engineer A\u0027s conscience while limiting professional exposure, though it may feel incomplete relative to the full self-advocacy ideal and could create ambiguity about the scope of the disclosure."
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Represents the practical resolution point of the case and teaches students that ethical deliberation must weigh multiple frameworks\u2014professional codes, legal rights, personal values, and community norms\u2014and that the absence of an ethical obligation to act does not make inaction morally hollow.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Authenticity and community solidarity vs. professional self-protection; the pull of advocacy-driven disclosure vs. the rational assessment that no ethical obligation requires it; retrospective guilt about past non-disclosure vs. the legal and ethical right to privacy; the desire to \u0027do the right thing\u0027 vs. uncertainty about what that actually requires.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "falling_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Engineer A\u0027s current employment relationship, career trajectory, mental health, and professional reputation; the risk of unnecessary disclosure triggering discrimination; the risk of continued non-disclosure perpetuating unresolved moral discomfort; the broader precedent for how engineers with disabilities navigate professional identity.",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A is actively deliberating whether to voluntarily disclose his Asperger\u0027s Syndrome to his current employer, weighing the self-advocacy principles from the conference, his interpretation of the NSPE Code, and the potential career consequences of disclosure.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Disclosure could expose him to employer bias despite ADA protections, limiting career advancement",
    "Non-disclosure continuation could perpetuate ethical discomfort if he concludes the Code requires disclosure",
    "Disclosure could improve workplace relationships and personal authenticity but at professional cost"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Ongoing competent practice of engineering",
    "Proactive ethical self-examination",
    "Consideration of professional code obligations before acting"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "NSPE Code: avoid deceptive acts",
    "NSPE Code Section III.1.f.: treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination",
    "Self-advocacy and personal dignity",
    "Personal right to privacy",
    "ADA legal protections"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Professional Engineer, current employer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Ethical transparency and self-advocacy vs. career security and personal privacy",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "The Board resolved the ethical dimension by finding that non-disclosure of a personal medical condition unrelated to engineering practice does not violate the NSPE Code; Engineer A retains full personal discretion over whether to disclose, with neither option constituting an ethical violation"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate and conflicted",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Reach a decision about disclosure that honors both his ethical obligations as a professional engineer and his personal rights to privacy and career security; potentially align his professional conduct with the self-advocacy principles he encountered at the conference",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical reasoning and professional judgment",
    "Self-advocacy and communication skills (if disclosure chosen)",
    "Knowledge of ADA rights and NSPE Code provisions"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present moment, ongoing deliberation",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Deliberating Whether to Disclose Autism"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_Non-Disclosure_Decision_by_BER_Case_97-11_Engineer",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Proactively disclose the pending ethics complaint to Client B at the outset of the engagement",
    "Disclose the existence of the complaint without characterizing its merits, leaving Client B to make an informed decision",
    "Withdraw from consideration for the Client B engagement until the complaint is resolved"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "The engineer in BER Case 97-11 made a professional judgment that an unresolved, contested ethics complaint\u2014essentially an allegation rather than a finding\u2014did not constitute material information that he was obligated to proactively volunteer to a prospective client, distinguishing between confirmed professional misconduct and unresolved allegations.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Proactive disclosure would have maximized client autonomy and transparency but risked losing the engagement based on an unproven allegation\u2014potentially penalizing the engineer for a complaint that might ultimately be dismissed.",
    "Neutral disclosure of the complaint\u0027s existence without characterization would have balanced transparency with fairness, allowing the client to decide while avoiding the engineer prejudging the outcome of the complaint.",
    "Withdrawing from the engagement would have eliminated the conflict entirely but imposed a significant professional cost for a complaint not yet adjudicated, effectively treating an allegation as a finding."
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Provides a comparative case that sharpens the distinction between non-disclosure of personal private information (Engineer A\u0027s autism) and non-disclosure of professionally relevant information (a pending ethics complaint)\u2014illustrating that context determines whether non-disclosure crosses into deception, and that even professionally relevant non-disclosure can be ethically defensible when the information is unresolved and contested.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Proactive candor and full transparency with clients vs. the professional judgment that unproven allegations need not be disclosed; the duty to avoid deception vs. the right not to self-incriminate with unresolved claims; client trust vs. the engineer\u0027s interest in fair treatment pending resolution of the complaint.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Client trust and informed consent; the engineer\u0027s professional reputation; the integrity of the client-engineer relationship; the risk that non-disclosure of the complaint could later appear as deliberate concealment of material information if the complaint is upheld.",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 97-11, Engineer A (a different engineer) deliberately chose not to proactively inform Client B about a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C, making a judgment that the unresolved allegation did not rise to the level of required disclosure.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Client B could learn of the complaint through other channels and feel deceived by the omission",
    "Non-disclosure could be perceived as a lack of transparency, damaging trust if the complaint became known"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Continued competent service to Client B",
    "Protection of own professional reputation from potentially baseless allegations"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "NSPE Code: act as faithful agent and trustee for client",
    "NSPE Code: avoid deceptive acts",
    "NSPE Code: be objective and truthful",
    "Protection against compelled self-incrimination on unproven allegations"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A in BER Case 97-11 (Professional Engineer providing design services)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Client transparency vs. self-protection from unproven allegations",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Board found non-disclosure ethical given the complaint\u0027s status as a mere allegation, while recommending proactive limited disclosure as a prudent professional practice to demonstrate transparency"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Continue providing services to Client B without disruption, avoiding premature disclosure of an unresolved and potentially baseless complaint that could damage the professional relationship",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment about disclosure obligations",
    "Client relationship management"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "1997, during active service to Client B",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Arguably the spirit of full transparency with clients, though Board found no ethical violation",
    "Board suggested Engineer A should have considered providing limited background information proactively"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Non-Disclosure Decision by BER Case 97-11 Engineer"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_False_Employment_Application_Response_by_Engineer_",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Answer \u0027yes\u0027 and disclose the contractor\u0027s license revocation with a brief explanatory note distinguishing it from his engineering license",
    "Contact the hiring firm before submitting the application to ask whether the question was intended to cover non-engineering licenses",
    "Decline to apply for the position if he believed the disciplinary history would disqualify him, rather than conceal it"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer F sought to preserve his professional opportunities by exploiting a technical distinction between his revoked contractor\u0027s license and his engineering license, betting that the question\u0027s literal wording provided cover for a materially misleading answer\u2014prioritizing self-interest and continued employability over honest disclosure.",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Honest disclosure with context would have respected the employer\u0027s right to full information while allowing Engineer F to frame the revocation accurately\u2014potentially preserving the application while demonstrating the candor that professional ethics require.",
    "Seeking clarification before answering would have been a good-faith effort to interpret the question correctly, potentially producing explicit guidance that either required or excluded disclosure of the contractor\u0027s license\u2014and documenting Engineer F\u0027s honest intent.",
    "Declining to apply rather than concealing the history would have been professionally costly but ethically clean, preserving Engineer F\u0027s integrity and avoiding the far greater professional consequences of discovered deception."
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "The clearest case of active deception in the comparative set\u2014demonstrating how technical literalism can be weaponized to produce materially false impressions, and providing the sharpest contrast to Engineer A\u0027s situation by illustrating what an actual \u0027deceptive act\u0027 under the NSPE Code looks like in practice.",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Literal compliance with the question\u0027s wording vs. the spirit of full and honest disclosure; technical truthfulness vs. substantive honesty; self-interest in securing employment vs. the employer\u0027s legitimate interest in knowing about prior disciplinary history; the temptation of a convenient technicality vs. the professional duty of candor.",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "The integrity of the employment application process; the hiring firm\u0027s ability to make informed decisions about professional risk; Engineer F\u0027s engineering license and career; public trust in the engineering profession; the employer\u0027s potential liability for hiring someone with concealed disciplinary history.",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 03-6, Engineer F deliberately answered \u0027no\u0027 on an engineering firm employment application when asked about prior license disciplinary actions, concealing the revocation of his contractor\u0027s license while technically distinguishing it from his engineering license.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "If the contractor\u0027s license revocation were discovered, it would appear as deliberate concealment rather than a technical distinction",
    "The employer\u0027s broader intent\u2014to assess character and integrity\u2014would be frustrated by the narrow interpretation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "NSPE Code: avoid deceptive acts",
    "Honesty and integrity in professional representations",
    "Employer\u0027s right to assess character and credibility of prospective employees"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer F in BER Case 03-6 (Professional Engineer, job applicant)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Career self-interest vs. professional honesty and employer transparency",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Board found that Engineer F\u0027s narrow interpretation was ethically impermissible because the employer\u0027s question clearly sought character and integrity information; the contractor\u0027s license revocation was materially relevant and should have been disclosed"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure employment at the engineering firm by providing a technically narrow answer to the disciplinary question, reasoning that the revoked license was a contractor\u0027s license rather than a professional engineering license",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Honest self-representation",
    "Judgment about materiality of prior professional actions to prospective employer"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "2003, during employment application process",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "NSPE Code: avoid deceptive acts",
    "Obligation to provide truthful information on employment applications",
    "Obligation to disclose information material to employer\u0027s assessment of character and integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "False Employment Application Response by Engineer F"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Event_25-Year_Career_Without_Disclosure",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Does the absence of harm over 25 years suggest non-disclosure was ethically neutral, or does it merely mean the ethical risk was never triggered?",
    "Should engineering licensure or employment require disclosure of neurological conditions? What values would such a requirement serve or undermine?",
    "How does a long history of non-disclosure shape an engineer\u0027s later ethical reasoning about whether to disclose?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "For Engineer A: quiet relief and possibly a normalized sense that non-disclosure is sustainable and harmless; for future employers: unknowing acceptance of a capable engineer; for observers: a demonstration that disability need not define professional capacity",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals the tension between an individual\u0027s right to medical privacy and any putative professional obligation of transparency; challenges the assumption that silence equals deception; raises questions about what \u0027deceptive acts\u0027 means in the absence of active misrepresentation",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates that non-disclosure of a personal medical condition is not inherently deceptive or professionally harmful when performance is unaffected; sets the baseline against which the later ethical dilemma is measured",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "employers": "Receive competent engineering services without awareness of any condition; no harm experienced",
    "engineer_a": "Establishes professional identity independent of diagnosis; gains confidence that non-disclosure carries no professional penalty; may develop psychological comfort with silence that later becomes ethically salient",
    "engineering_profession": "Implicitly normalized the idea that personal medical conditions need not be disclosed absent performance impact",
    "public": "Served by a competent engineer; no safety risk attributable to the condition or its non-disclosure"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Privacy_Right_Constraint",
    "Non_Deception_Norm_Latent"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_Initial_Non-Disclosure_of_Autism",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer A accumulates a long professional record unmarked by disclosure; non-disclosure becomes an established behavioral pattern; no adverse professional consequences materialize",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A successfully practiced engineering across multiple employers for 25 years without his Asperger\u0027s Syndrome diagnosis being known to employers. This outcome reflects the sustained professional viability of non-disclosure over a lengthy career.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "low",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Early career through pre-current-employer period (spanning ~25 years)",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "25-Year Career Without Disclosure"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Event_Continued_Non-Disclosure_Outcome_at_Current_Employ",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Is there a difference, ethically, between not disclosing at career entry versus continuing not to disclose after five years with a current employer?",
    "Does the duration of a professional relationship create any additional disclosure obligations that did not exist at hiring?",
    "If no harm has occurred and no one has been misled about work product, in what sense \u2014 if any \u2014 has a deceptive act taken place?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "For Engineer A: routine professional life with no anxiety specifically tied to disclosure; for current employer: satisfaction with a productive employee; the undisclosed condition exists as background context invisible to all parties",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Highlights that ethical obligations around disclosure may be context-dependent and time-sensitive; raises the question of whether omission in an ongoing relationship differs morally from omission at initial hiring",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Illustrates that the ethical question about disclosure is not triggered by harm or performance failure but by an internal moral reflection prompted by an external event \u2014 showing that ethics often operates in the absence of crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "colleagues": "Unaffected; may have noticed personality traits without attributing them to a diagnosis",
    "current_employer": "Unaware of condition; receives competent services; no harm",
    "engineer_a": "Maintains stable employment and professional identity; no adverse consequences from non-disclosure",
    "public": "No safety risk; engineering outputs unaffected"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Privacy_Right_Constraint",
    "Non_Deception_Norm_Latent"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_Non-Disclosure_at_Current_Employer",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Non-disclosure pattern becomes entrenched within current employment relationship; Engineer A\u0027s professional standing at current employer is unaffected by the undisclosed condition",
  "proeth:description": "Over the five years at his current employer, Engineer A\u0027s non-disclosure of Asperger\u0027s Syndrome persisted without professional consequence, extending the pattern established over his prior career into his present employment context.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "low",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Past 5 years at current employer, prior to conference attendance",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "Continued Non-Disclosure Outcome at Current Employer"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Event_Speaker_Advocacy_for_Self-Disclosure",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Should the advocacy of a speaker at a support conference carry moral weight in a professional ethics analysis? Why or why not?",
    "How do community norms within a disability advocacy context interact with \u2014 or conflict with \u2014 professional engineering ethics norms?",
    "Is it ethically significant that Engineer A\u0027s self-reflection was triggered by external advocacy rather than by a workplace event or harm?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "For Engineer A: potential surprise, discomfort, or cognitive dissonance as a practice he had normalized is reframed as potentially problematic; possibly anxiety about whether he has been acting unethically for decades; for the speaker: fulfilling an advocacy role with no awareness of Engineer A\u0027s specific situation",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Illustrates that ethical awareness can be externally catalyzed rather than internally generated; raises questions about the sources of moral authority and whether advocacy-based norms should be distinguished from codified professional obligations",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows how external normative claims \u2014 even from non-authoritative sources \u2014 can trigger genuine ethical reflection; demonstrates that ethical dilemmas often arise not from new facts but from new framings of existing situations",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "autism_community": "Advocacy for disclosure may empower some while creating guilt or pressure for others",
    "engineer_a": "Psychological disruption of a stable self-narrative; introduction of ethical doubt about a long-standing personal decision",
    "engineering_profession": "Indirectly implicated as the professional context in which disclosure is being considered",
    "speaker": "Unaware of impact on any specific attendee; acting in good faith as an advocate"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Non_Deception_Norm_Latent",
    "Professional_Reflection_Norm"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_Attending_Autism_Support_Conference",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer A\u0027s internal equilibrium regarding non-disclosure is disrupted; a normative external voice introduces the possibility that his silence may be ethically problematic; self-reflection process is initiated",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Obligation_to_Reflect_on_Ethical_Conduct"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "At the autism support conference Engineer A attended, a speaker publicly advocated for self-disclosure of autism diagnoses. This external communication event introduced a normative claim into Engineer A\u0027s awareness that he had not previously encountered in a professional ethics framing.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "low",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the autism support conference (recent, specific point in time)",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "Speaker Advocacy for Self-Disclosure"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Event_Ethical_Doubt_Arising_in_Engineer_A",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Is ethical doubt triggered by community advocacy as morally weighty as doubt triggered by a specific workplace event? Should it be?",
    "How should an engineer distinguish between a genuine ethical obligation and a social pressure dressed in ethical language?",
    "What resources should Engineer A consult to resolve this doubt, and why?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "For Engineer A: anxiety, guilt, uncertainty, and possibly retrospective distress about past conduct; a sense of vulnerability as a private matter becomes ethically charged; for observers: empathy for a professional navigating an unexpected ethical challenge",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals how the intersection of disability identity, community norms, and professional ethics codes can create genuine moral complexity; highlights the risk of conflating advocacy-based norms with codified professional obligations",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates that ethical dilemmas can be created by the collision of community advocacy norms with professional codes; shows that ethical doubt is itself a morally significant state that demands resolution through reasoned analysis rather than emotional reaction",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "autism_advocacy_community": "Their advocacy has produced an unintended consequence of ethical distress in a member",
    "current_employer": "Unaware; not yet a stakeholder in the active ethical deliberation",
    "engineer_a": "Psychological burden of ethical uncertainty; risk of over-correcting based on misapplied advocacy norms; potential for unnecessary guilt",
    "nspe_and_ber": "Implicitly called upon as the authority to resolve the uncertainty"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Non_Deception_Norm_Active",
    "Professional_Self_Examination_Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_Attending_Autism_Support_Conference",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer A transitions from a state of stable non-disclosure to a state of active ethical uncertainty; the NSPE Code\u0027s \u0027avoid deceptive acts\u0027 provision becomes personally salient for the first time",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Obligation_to_Consult_Professional_Code",
    "Obligation_to_Seek_Ethical_Clarity"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "As a result of the speaker\u0027s advocacy, Engineer A experienced a state of ethical uncertainty about whether his long-standing non-disclosure constituted a violation of the NSPE Code\u0027s prohibition on deceptive acts. This is an internal psychological outcome, not a decision.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "low",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During or immediately following the autism support conference",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "Ethical Doubt Arising in Engineer A"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Event_BER_Conclusion__Privacy_Not_Deception",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Does the BER\u0027s conclusion that non-disclosure is a \u0027privacy matter\u0027 mean Engineer A had no ethical obligations whatsoever regarding his condition, or only that he did not violate the Code?",
    "How should the BER\u0027s reasoning apply if Engineer A\u0027s condition had been causing performance problems that affected project safety?",
    "What is the relationship between legal protections for disability privacy (e.g., ADA) and professional ethics codes \u2014 should they be aligned, and who should decide?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "For Engineer A: relief and vindication; resolution of anxiety; possible renewed confidence in his professional identity; for the autism advocacy community: a nuanced outcome that neither endorses nor condemns non-disclosure; for ethics educators: a clear illustration of the distinction between omission and deception",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Crystallizes the distinction between the ethics of deception (requiring active misrepresentation) and the ethics of disclosure (a separate and context-dependent obligation); affirms that professional ethics codes do not require engineers to surrender personal privacy as a condition of practice; raises the deeper question of when, if ever, personal characteristics become professionally relevant",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates the critical distinction between active deception (making false statements) and passive non-disclosure (remaining silent about personal information); shows how professional ethics codes must be interpreted carefully against the facts before concluding a violation has occurred",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "aftermath",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "autism_advocacy_community": "Their advocacy norm is implicitly distinguished from a professional ethical obligation, though not invalidated as a personal choice",
    "current_employer": "Implicitly confirmed that they have no enforceable claim to this personal information",
    "engineer_a": "Ethical burden lifted; professional standing confirmed; personal privacy right affirmed by authoritative body",
    "engineering_profession": "Clarifies the boundary between professional transparency obligations and personal privacy rights",
    "nspe_and_ber": "Establishes precedent that passive non-disclosure of personal medical conditions is not a deceptive act under the Code"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Privacy_Right_Constraint_Affirmed"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_Consulting_NSPE_Code_on_Disclosure",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer A\u0027s ethical uncertainty is resolved in his favor; non-disclosure is reframed as a protected privacy right; the NSPE Code\u0027s deception provision is determined not to apply to passive non-disclosure of personal medical information",
  "proeth:description": "The Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A\u0027s non-disclosure of his Asperger\u0027s Syndrome diagnosis constitutes a personal privacy matter rather than a violation of the NSPE Code\u0027s prohibition on deceptive acts. This outcome resolves the ethical uncertainty Engineer A experienced.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "routine",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the conclusion of the BER case analysis (present, after deliberation)",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "BER Conclusion: Privacy Not Deception"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Event_Historical_Deception_Cases_Surfaced",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What makes a prior BER case relevant to a new situation \u2014 factual similarity, legal similarity, or normative similarity?",
    "How does placing Engineer A\u0027s non-disclosure alongside cases of active false statements affect your moral evaluation of his conduct?",
    "Should older precedents (e.g., 1975) carry the same weight as more recent ones, given that social understanding of disability has evolved significantly?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "For students and observers: intellectual engagement with how precedent shapes ethical reasoning; for Engineer A (hypothetically): awareness that his case is being measured against others who actively deceived, which may feel either reassuring (he did not do what they did) or unsettling (his conduct is being placed in the same analytical category)",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Demonstrates the role of institutional memory and precedent in professional ethics; reveals that the category of \u0027deception\u0027 encompasses a spectrum of conduct, and that placement on that spectrum has significant moral and professional consequences",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Illustrates how professional ethics reasoning is not conducted in isolation but in dialogue with institutional history; shows students that ethical conclusions are built on precedent and that distinguishing cases is a core analytical skill",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "ber": "Institutional credibility reinforced by demonstrating consistent reasoning across cases",
    "engineer_a": "His conduct is contextualized against engineers who made false statements \u2014 a comparison that ultimately favors him",
    "engineering_profession": "Benefits from a coherent, evolving body of ethical precedent",
    "ethics_educators": "Gain a rich comparative case set for teaching the spectrum from active deception to passive non-disclosure"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Precedent_Consistency_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_Consulting_NSPE_Code_on_Disclosure",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "The analytical frame expands from Engineer A\u0027s specific situation to a broader jurisprudential context; historical cases provide the normative scaffolding against which Engineer A\u0027s conduct is measured",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Obligation_to_Distinguish_or_Follow_Precedent"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Three prior BER cases from 1975, 1997, and 2003 involving deception and disclosure obligations were introduced into the current analysis as contextualizing precedents. Their emergence as relevant comparators is an automatic outcome of the BER\u0027s standard analogical reasoning process.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "routine",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic_trigger",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During BER case analysis (discussion phase), referencing cases from 1975, 1997, and 2003",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "Historical Deception Cases Surfaced"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Event_Engineer_F_s_False_Statement_Discovered",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Is there a morally relevant difference between answering \u0027no\u0027 to a direct question falsely (Engineer F) and never being asked and never answering (Engineer A)?",
    "If Engineer A had been directly asked on an employment application whether he had any medical conditions, and had answered \u0027no,\u0027 would that change your analysis?",
    "Does the formality of an employment application create stronger disclosure obligations than an informal professional relationship?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "For Engineer F: exposure, professional shame, and potential career consequences; for the employer who received the false application: betrayal of trust; for the engineering community: a cautionary example; for Engineer A (by contrast): relief that his situation involves no such affirmative falsehood",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Sharpens the conceptual boundary between active deception and passive non-disclosure; demonstrates that professional ethics codes distinguish between lying and silence; raises the question of whether the obligation to disclose is triggered by a direct question, by materiality, or by some other criterion",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Provides the clearest possible contrast case to Engineer A\u0027s situation: Engineer F made an active, affirmative false statement in response to a direct question, while Engineer A simply did not volunteer information. The contrast clarifies the moral distinction between lying and remaining silent.",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a_by_analogy": "His conduct is distinguished from Engineer F\u0027s \u2014 he made no false statements, only remained silent",
    "engineer_f": "Professional reputation damaged; ethical violation established; potential loss of licensure or employment",
    "engineering_profession": "Integrity of professional self-reporting norms undermined",
    "prospective_employer_in_case_03_6": "Deceived in a material employment decision; trust violated"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Non_Deception_Norm_Active",
    "Professional_Integrity_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#Action_False_Employment_Application_Response_by_Engineer_",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer F\u0027s professional standing is compromised; a clear ethical violation is established; the case becomes a negative precedent illustrating what active deception looks like in a professional employment context",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Obligation_to_Correct_False_Statement",
    "Obligation_to_Report_Misconduct"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 03-6, Engineer F\u0027s false response on an employment application \u2014 denying involvement in a matter under investigation \u2014 became known, constituting an active misrepresentation that stands in contrast to Engineer A\u0027s passive non-disclosure.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "BER Case 03-6 (2003), referenced in current case discussion",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Engineer F\u0027s False Statement Discovered"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#CausalChain_c361e10c",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A made a deliberate decision not to disclose his Asperger\u0027s Syndrome at the start of his engineering career, resulting in successfully practicing engineering across multiple employers for 25 years without his condition being known",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A deliberately chooses not to disclose Asperger\u0027s Syndrome at career entry",
      "proeth:element": "Initial Non-Disclosure Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Non-disclosure becomes the established behavioral norm across successive employers",
      "proeth:element": "Pattern Establishment",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A performs competently, removing any performance-based trigger for discovery",
      "proeth:element": "Functional Professional Performance",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "No employer, regulator, or colleague surfaces the undisclosed condition",
      "proeth:element": "Absence of External Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A completes 25 years of practice without Asperger\u0027s Syndrome being known professionally",
      "proeth:element": "25-Year Undisclosed Career Outcome",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Initial Non-Disclosure of Autism (Action 1)",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A disclosed at career outset, the 25-year undisclosed career trajectory would not have occurred; alternatively, had any employer discovered or mandated disclosure, the chain would have been interrupted",
  "proeth:effect": "25-Year Career Without Disclosure (Event 1)",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Deliberate initial decision to withhold Asperger\u0027s diagnosis",
    "Absence of any legal or regulatory mandate requiring disclosure",
    "Engineer A\u0027s functional competence in performing engineering duties",
    "No employer inquiry or discovery of the condition across multiple workplaces"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of volitional non-disclosure + professional competence + no external disclosure trigger was sufficient to sustain undisclosed status across a 25-year career"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#CausalChain_4b61a9fd",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "As a result of the speaker\u0027s advocacy at the autism support conference Engineer A attended, Engineer A experienced a state of ethical uncertainty about whether his continued non-disclosure was ethically appropriate",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A voluntarily chooses to attend an autism support conference",
      "proeth:element": "Conference Attendance Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "A speaker at the conference publicly advocates that individuals with autism should self-disclose",
      "proeth:element": "Speaker Advocacy for Self-Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A recognizes the direct applicability of the advocacy to his own 25-year non-disclosure",
      "proeth:element": "Personal Relevance Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A enters a state of ethical uncertainty about whether continued non-disclosure is appropriate",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Doubt Arising",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A actively begins deliberating voluntary disclosure to his current employer",
      "proeth:element": "Deliberating Whether to Disclose",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Attending Autism Support Conference (Action 3)",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without attending the conference, Engineer A would likely have continued his established non-disclosure pattern without documented ethical deliberation; the speaker\u0027s advocacy was the proximate trigger for doubt",
  "proeth:effect": "Ethical Doubt Arising in Engineer A (Event 4)",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s volitional decision to attend the conference",
    "Presence of a speaker publicly advocating for self-disclosure",
    "Engineer A\u0027s pre-existing undisclosed condition creating personal relevance",
    "Engineer A\u0027s capacity for ethical self-reflection"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (primary); Speaker (indirect contributor)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Attendance at conference + exposure to pro-disclosure advocacy + personal stake in the issue together were sufficient to generate ethical doubt where none had previously been documented"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#CausalChain_48ce5e96",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Following the conference, Engineer A deliberately engaged with the NSPE Code of Ethics, which prompted ethical review and ultimately led the Board of Ethical Review to conclude that Engineer A\u0027s non-disclosure of his Asperger\u0027s Syndrome did not constitute deception but rather a protected exercise of personal privacy",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A deliberately reviews NSPE Code of Ethics provisions relevant to disclosure obligations",
      "proeth:element": "NSPE Code Consultation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Review surfaces three prior BER cases from 1975, 1997, and 2003 involving deception and disclosure",
      "proeth:element": "Historical BER Cases Surfaced",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "BER distinguishes Engineer A\u0027s passive non-disclosure from Engineer F\u0027s affirmative false statement in Case 03-6",
      "proeth:element": "Comparative Case Analysis",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "BER applies the Code\u0027s framework to determine that silence without false statement constitutes privacy, not deception",
      "proeth:element": "Privacy-Deception Distinction Applied",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "BER formally concludes that Engineer A\u0027s non-disclosure does not violate the NSPE Code of Ethics",
      "proeth:element": "BER Conclusion: Privacy Not Deception",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Consulting NSPE Code on Disclosure (Action 4)",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer A consulting the NSPE Code and triggering BER review, no formal ethical determination would have been rendered; had Engineer A made affirmative false statements (as in BER Case 03-6), the outcome would likely have been reversed",
  "proeth:effect": "BER Conclusion: Privacy Not Deception (Event 5)",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s deliberate engagement with the NSPE Code of Ethics",
    "The NSPE Code\u0027s provisions distinguishing privacy from deception",
    "BER\u0027s interpretive authority over the Code",
    "Absence of any affirmative false statement by Engineer A regarding his condition",
    "Historical BER case precedents (Cases 97-11 and 03-6) providing comparative deception standards"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (initiating consultation); BER (rendering conclusion)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s Code consultation + BER review process + distinction between passive non-disclosure and active misrepresentation was sufficient to produce the privacy-not-deception conclusion"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#CausalChain_af2b23aa",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A again deliberately chose not to disclose when accepting his current position five years ago, and over those five years the non-disclosure persisted; however, Engineer A is now actively deliberating whether to voluntarily disclose, marking a potential inflection point in the established non-disclosure pattern",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A deliberately chooses not to disclose Asperger\u0027s Syndrome when accepting current position five years ago",
      "proeth:element": "Non-Disclosure at Current Employer Hiring",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Non-disclosure persists across five years of employment without discovery or inquiry",
      "proeth:element": "Five-Year Non-Disclosure Continuance",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Speaker advocacy triggers ethical uncertainty, disrupting the established non-disclosure equilibrium",
      "proeth:element": "Conference Attendance and Ethical Doubt",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A consults the Code; BER concludes non-disclosure is privacy, not deception, but does not mandate either disclosure or continued silence",
      "proeth:element": "NSPE Code Consultation and BER Conclusion",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A faces an informed, ethically framed decision about whether to voluntarily disclose to his current employer",
      "proeth:element": "Active Deliberation on Voluntary Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Non-Disclosure at Current Employer (Action 2) combined with Deliberating Whether to Disclose (Action 5)",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the conference attendance, Engineer A would likely have continued non-disclosure indefinitely without deliberation; without the BER privacy conclusion, Engineer A might have faced a perceived ethical obligation to disclose immediately",
  "proeth:effect": "Continued Non-Disclosure Outcome at Current Employer (Event 2) transitioning to active ethical deliberation",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Deliberate non-disclosure decision at time of hiring five years ago",
    "Absence of any employer-initiated inquiry or discovery in the intervening five years",
    "Engineer A\u0027s continued functional competence removing performance-based disclosure triggers",
    "The conference attendance and resulting ethical doubt as the catalyst for current deliberation",
    "BER\u0027s privacy-not-deception conclusion providing ethical permission structure for either choice"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Five-year non-disclosure pattern + conference-triggered ethical doubt + BER framework consultation together created the conditions sufficient for Engineer A to face a genuine, informed disclosure decision point"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/146#CausalChain_5fad2652",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer F deliberately answered \u0027no\u0027 on an engineering firm employment application denying involvement in a prior disciplinary matter, and this false response was subsequently discovered, triggering BER Case 03-6 and establishing an affirmative deception precedent distinguishable from passive non-disclosure",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer F encounters a formal employment application containing a direct question about prior disciplinary involvement",
      "proeth:element": "Employment Application with Direct Disciplinary Question",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer F knowingly answers \u0027no\u0027 despite having a prior disciplinary history",
      "proeth:element": "Deliberate False Answer",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The employing firm relies on the false answer in making its hiring decision",
      "proeth:element": "Application Submission and Reliance",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer F\u0027s false response is discovered through background verification or other means",
      "proeth:element": "False Statement Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "BER finds Engineer F\u0027s affirmative false statement constitutes an ethics violation, establishing precedent distinguishing active deception from passive non-disclosure",
      "proeth:element": "BER Case 03-6 Ethical Violation Finding",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "False Employment Application Response by Engineer F (Action 7)",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer F answered truthfully or left the question blank, no false statement violation would have occurred; had the false statement not been discovered, no BER case would have been triggered, removing a key precedent from the current analysis",
  "proeth:effect": "Engineer F\u0027s False Statement Discovered (Event 7)",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer F\u0027s deliberate false answer on the employment application",
    "The employment application\u0027s direct question about disciplinary history",
    "The existence of a prior disciplinary matter that Engineer F was obligated to truthfully report",
    "Discovery mechanism that surfaced the discrepancy between the false answer and actual history"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer F",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Affirmative false statement on a formal employment document + existence of contradicting factual record + discovery process was sufficient to establish an ethics violation finding"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}