Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A violated ethical obligations by not reporting Engineer B, the case reveals a systemic failure in professional oversight mechanisms. Engineer A's private confrontation approach, while demonstrating personal loyalty, created a dangerous precedent where friendship supersedes regulatory compliance. The Board's conclusion implicitly establishes that professional courtesy cannot substitute for formal reporting channels when public safety is compromised, particularly given the structural failure had already occurred.

The Board's finding that Engineer B violated ethical standards by continuing impaired practice reveals deeper issues about professional self-regulation and financial pressures in small engineering firms. Engineer B's status as the sole licensed professional in his firm created a structural vulnerability where economic survival conflicted with professional competence obligations. This case demonstrates that the engineering profession needs better support mechanisms for practitioners facing medical impairments that affect professional judgment.

Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A violated ethical obligations by not reporting Engineer B, the case reveals a systemic failure in professional oversight mechanisms. Engineer A's private confrontation approach, while demonstrating personal loyalty, created a dangerous precedent where friendship supersedes regulatory compliance. The Board's conclusion implicitly establishes that professional courtesy cannot substitute for formal reporting channels when public safety is compromised, particularly given the structural failure had already occurred.

Regarding the ethical obligations of Engineer B's wife (Q101), while she held no professional engineering license and thus no direct ethical obligations under the NSPE Code, her participation in concealing her husband's impairment while managing the business created a complicity that enabled professional violations. Her actions demonstrate how non-engineers in engineering firms can become ethically implicated when they facilitate unlicensed or incompetent practice, even without direct professional obligations.

The Board's finding that Engineer B violated ethical standards by continuing impaired practice reveals deeper issues about professional self-regulation and financial pressures in small engineering firms. Engineer B's status as the sole licensed professional in his firm created a structural vulnerability where economic survival conflicted with professional competence obligations. This case demonstrates that the engineering profession needs better support mechanisms for practitioners facing medical impairments that affect professional judgment.

The tension between Professional_Integrity_NonMalicious and Transparency_Reporting_Obligation was resolved by prioritizing public welfare over personal relationships. The case establishes a clear hierarchy where reporting obligations supersede concerns about harming a colleague's reputation when public safety has been compromised. The Board's analysis demonstrates that the 'non-malicious' aspect of professional integrity cannot be interpreted to excuse failures in transparency when structural failures have already occurred.

The interaction between Competence_EngineerB_Impairment and Responsible_Charge_Principle reveals that competence obligations are non-delegable when medical impairment affects professional judgment. Engineer B's attempt to maintain responsible charge while delegating all substantive work to Engineer Intern C violated both principles simultaneously. This case establishes that responsible charge requires actual competent oversight, not merely formal authority, and that medical impairments creating competence deficits must be addressed through practice suspension rather than delegation workarounds.

The interaction between Competence_EngineerB_Impairment and Responsible_Charge_Principle reveals that competence obligations are non-delegable when medical impairment affects professional judgment. Engineer B's attempt to maintain responsible charge while delegating all substantive work to Engineer Intern C violated both principles simultaneously. This case establishes that responsible charge requires actual competent oversight, not merely formal authority, and that medical impairments creating competence deficits must be addressed through practice suspension rather than delegation workarounds.

From a deontological perspective (Q301), Engineer A failed to fulfill his categorical duty to report violations regardless of personal relationships. Kant's categorical imperative would require Engineer A to act only according to principles that could become universal laws - if all engineers prioritized friendship over reporting obligations, the entire regulatory system would collapse. The structural failure that had already occurred made Engineer A's duty absolute, as the maxim 'report known violations that have caused public harm' is universally applicable without contradiction.