An engineer is consulting for a construction company that has been receiving bad
ID: 1710636 • Letter: A
Question
An engineer is consulting for a construction company that has been receiving bad publicity in the local papers about its waste handling practices. Knowing that this criticism is based on public misconceptions and the paper's thirst for controversial stories, the engineer would like to write an article to be printed in the paper's editorial page. What statement best describes the engineer's ethical obligations? The engineer's relationship with the company makes it unethical for him to take any public action on its behalf. The engineer should request that a local representative of the engineering registration board review the data and write the article in order that an impartial point of view be presented. As long as the article is objective and truthful and presents all relevant information including engineer's professional credentials, ethical obligations have been satisfied. The article must be objective and truthful. Present all relevant information including the professional credentials and disclose all details of engineer's affiliation with the company. During routine inspections, a field engineer discovers that one of the company's pipelines is leaking hazardous chemicals into the environment. The engineer recommends that the line be shut down so that the seals can be replaced and the pipe can be inspected more closely. His supervisor recommends him on this thoroughness, and says the report will be passed on to the company's maintenance division. The engineer moves on to his next job, assuming things will be taken care of in a timely manner. While working in the area again several months after, the engineer notices that the problem hasn't been corrected and is in fact getting worse. What should the engineer do? Give the matter some more time. In a large corporate environment, it is understandable that some things take longer that people would like them to. Ask the supervisor to investigate what action has been taken on the matter. Personally speak to the director of maintenance and insist that this project be given high priority. Report the company to the environmental protection agency for allowing the situation to worsen without taking any preventive measures. Suppose it is not possible to get James' informed consent to an action that affects him. Which of the following statements best characterizes what a WEAK paternalist should do in such circumstances? Do what the reasonable and informed person would do in the circumstances assuming James would most likely do what the reasonable and informed would do Do what you think the person should do according to your values. Do what would promote the most overall good in the circumstances Do what the expert or professional would do in, thou even this may not be James would wantExplanation / Answer
Hi,
Plz give thumbs up.
Q.23 is not clearly visible.SO answering the next question.
A.24) For best describing ethical obligations in this case, it is best satisfied when the engineer keeps aside his personal views and allow an independent body to review the matter and then write an article.
So the correct answer is option B.