Engineering Ethics Cases
http://www.onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/ec88-6.html
Mario, the City
Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized city, is the only licensed
professional engineer (and also a civil engineer) in a position of
responsibility within the city government.
This city has several large food-processing plants that discharge large
amounts of waste into the wastewater system during canning season. Mario is responsible for the wastewater
treatment plant and reports to James about its operation.
Mario tells James that the
wastewater treatment plant is not capable of handling potential overflow during
the rainy season and offers several possible solutions. James replies that they will face the problem
when it happens.
Engineer Mario privately
notifies other city officials about the wastewater treatment plant problem, but
James removes the responsibility for the sanitation system from Mario and gives
it to Chris, a technician who is normally under Mario's supervision. James instructs technician Chris to report
directly to him and confirms this arrangement with a memo, which is copied to
engineer Mario. Mario is also placed on
probation. He is warned that if he
discusses the matter further, he will be terminated.
Mario continues to work for
the government as City Engineer/Director of Public Works; he assumes no
responsibility for the wastewater treatment plant, but continues to advise
technician Chris without James's knowledge.
During the winter, heavy storms occur in the city. It becomes clear to those involved that if
the wastewater treatment plant's waste water is not released into the local
river, the ponds will overflow and dump all of the
waste into the river. Under state law,
this condition must be reported to the State Water Pollution Control Authority.
How would you respond to this situation? How do you assess engineer Mario's
actions? What about James's
actions? What about technician Chris? What are engineer
Mario's obligations1 to either James or the Public Works Department? What are Mario's responsibilities2 for the
environmental health of city residents?
How might these responsibilities be fulfilled simultaneously? Which takes precedence in case of conflict? What additional information would you like to
have, and what difference would it make to your assessment?
Definitions:
1 Obligations
- Requirements arising from a person's situation or circumstances (e.g.,
relationships, knowledge, position) that specify what
must or must not be done for some moral, legal, religious, or institutional
reasons. For example, students have an
obligation to see their advisor on or before Registration Day. People have a
moral obligation to keep their promises.
Notice that usually statements of obligations specify what acts are
required or forbidden without reference to the consequences of performing the
act (except insofar as these consequences are a part of the characterization of
the act itself -- for example, killing is an act that results in death.) However, occasionally you will see such statements
as "engineers have an obligation in their work to ensure public
safety," meaning that engineers are morally required to ensure the public
safety but without specifying what acts they should or should not perform in
order to ensure safety. A legal
obligation is a legal requirement that specifies what types of actions are
permitted, forbidden, or required on legal grounds. Often legal obligations are monetary debts.
When we speak of an obligation without specifying its nature we will mean a
moral obligation.
2
Responsibility - The moral and forward-looking sense of
responsibility is the sense in which one is responsible for achieving (or
maintaining) a good result in some matter.
The idea is that one is entrusted with achieving or maintaining this
outcome, and expected to both have relevant knowledge and skills, and to make a
conscientious effort. However, despite
one's best efforts, the result may not be achieved. For example, patients of responsible
physicians may die, and the work of a responsible engineer may result in an
accident because the accident was not foreseeable, it was not possible to
compensate for the factors causing the accident, or because others were
unwilling to heed the engineer's warnings.
The
moral and backward-looking sense of responsibility is that in which a person or
group deserves ethical evaluation for some act or outcome, that is deserves
moral praise for a good outcome or blame for a bad one. The moral sense of responsibility should not
be confused with the causal sense of responsibility for some existing or past
state of affairs. For example, when we
say that "the storm was responsible for three deaths and heavy property
damage," meaning that it caused these outcomes, we do not mean to
attribute moral responsibility to the storm. Storms do not have moral
responsibilities, and are neither responsible or
irresponsible in the moral sense.
However, when a moral agent is causally responsible for some outcome, that is some reason to think that the agent is
morally responsible for it. Causal
responsibility is not conclusive evidence of moral responsibility,
however. If one's actions case a
terrible outcome only because of bad moral luck, in the form of a freak
accident, then one is not morally responsible for the outcome.
Forward-looking
responsibilities are often specified in terms of the outcome to be achieved
rather than the acts to be performed. It
takes judgment to figure out what acts will achieve a given outcome. For this reason you will hear the phrase
"the age of responsibility" or "the age of discretion" used
to mean an age at which a person is sufficiently mature to exercise such
judgment. Such practical wisdom is not
required in order to fulfill many obligations which are often specified in
terms of the acts to be performed or to be avoided. For example, contrast the engineer's
responsibility for the safety of the public with a citizen's obligation to
testify when witness to a crime. Notice that "obligation" would
never be used in the way "responsible" is, to refer to a virtue of a
person. That is, you would not say that
so-and-so was an "obligatory" person, though you may say she was
"responsible."
Sometimes
"responsibility" is used to mean an act one is required to perform,
as in "It is your responsibility to take minutes for this
meeting." In this Center, the term
"responsibility" will be used only for matters that require some
exercise of discretion and judgment and required acts will just be called
"obligations."
Sometimes
"responsible" is used in a phrase of the form "responsible to
(some other party), in which the term "responsible" is used as a
synonym for "answerable" or "accountable." An example would be: "This citizens'
group was accountable/responsible/answerable to its parent
organization." This use of the term
"responsible" is easily distinguished from the present one which is
"responsible for (some matter for which one must exercise
discretion)."
Official Responsibility
The responsibility that
one is assigned as a result of one's job or office. Of course, official responsibilities might
require one to behave unethically - "it was my job" is not a valid
excuse for immoral behavior. However,
even when the requirements of an official responsibility are ethically
acceptable, the concept of an official responsibility functions differently
from moral responsibility. Official
responsibility resembles moral responsibility in generating prescriptions for
conduct - duties, or at least statements about what someone "ought"
to do. As philosopher John Ladd points
out, moral and official responsibility differ in at least two respects: First,
official responsibilities are exclusionary - if one person has a particular
official responsibility, another person does not (unless, of course, it was
part of the job description of both).
Second, official responsibilities, together with whatever rights, duties
and requirements for accountability attend them, are all alienable (see rights)
- they can be given to or taken over by someone else. In contrast, if one has a moral
responsibility to inform the public about some matter, then even if one is in
the position to delegate that responsibility to someone else, one still must
see that the responsibility is fulfilled, because one does not get rid of a
moral responsibility by giving it to someone else.
Professional Responsibility
Professional
responsibility is a prominent example of the kind of moral responsibility that
arises from the special knowledge that one possesses. It is mastery of a special body of advanced
knowledge, particularly knowledge that bears directly on the well-being of others, that demarcates a profession. As custodians of special knowledge which
bears on human well-being, professionals are constrained by special moral
responsibilities; that is, moral requirements to apply their knowledge in ways
that benefit the rest of the society.
Discussion of the
Facts:
Engineer A is employed as the
City Engineer / Director of Public Works for a medium-sized city and is the
only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city
government. The city has several large
food processing plants that discharge very large amounts of vegetable wastes
into the city's sanitary sewer (wastewater) system during the canning
season. Part of the canning season
coincides with the rainy season.
Engineer A has the
responsibility for the wastewater treatment plant and is directly responsible
to City Administrator C. Technician B answers to Engineer A.
During the course of
employment, Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of
the wastewater treatment plant to handle the potential overflow during the
rainy season and offers possible solutions.
Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members
of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C. City Administrator C has told Engineer A that
"we will face the problem when it comes." City Administrator C orders
Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns Engineer A that his job is in
danger if Engineer A disobeys.
Engineer A again privately
brings the problem up to other city officials.
City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the
entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician
B that he is to take responsible charge of the wastewater system and report
directly to City Administrator C.
Technician B asks for a clarification and is again instructed via memo
by City Administrator C that he, Technician B, is completely responsible and is
to report any interference by a third party to City Administrator C. Engineer A receives a copy of the memo. In addition, Engineer A is placed on
probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if he does he
will be terminated.
Engineer A continues in his
capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility
for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without
the knowledge of City Administrator C.
That winter during the
canning season, particularly heavy storms occur in the city. It becomes obvious to those involved that if
waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the
local river, the ponds will overflow the levees and dump
all waste into the river. Under state
law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution
control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water
quality in state streams and rivers.
Question:
Did Engineer A fulfill his
ethical obligation by informing City Administrator C and certain members of the
city council of her concerns?
References:
NSPE Code of Ethics- Section
I.1.:"Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall
hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance
of their professional duties."
Section II.1.a.:"Engineers
shall at all times recognize that their primary obligation is to protect the
safety, health, property and welfare of the public. If their professional
judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health, property or
welfare of the public are endangered, they shall
notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be
appropriate."
Section II.4.:"Engineers
shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees."
Section III.2.b.:"Engineers
shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a
design safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted
engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional
conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further
service on the project."
Discussion:
The engineer's obligation to
hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance
of his professional duties, is probably among the most basic. Clearly, its importance is evident by the fact
that it is the very first obligation stated in the NSPE Code of Ethics. Moreover, the premise upon which professional
engineering exists -- the engineering registration process -- is founded upon
the proposition that in order to protect the public health and safety, the
state has an interest in regulating by law the practice of the profession.
While easily stated in the
abstract, the breadth and scope of this fundamental obligation is far more
difficult to fix. As we have long known,
ethics frequently involves a delicate balance between competing and, oft times,
conflicting obligations. However, it
seems clear that where the conflict is between one important obligation or
loyalty and the protection of the public, for the engineer the latter must be
viewed as the higher obligation.
The Board has faced this most
difficult issue on two other occasions in somewhat dissimilar
circumstances. In Case 65-12, we dealt
with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that certain machinery
was unsafe, and we determined that the engineers were ethically justified in
refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in
question. We recognized in that case
that such action by the engineers would likely lead to the loss of employment.
More recently, in Case 82-5,
the engineer was employed by a large industrial company and after reviewing
plans for materials supplied by a subcontractor, determined that they were
inadequate both from a design and a cost standpoint and therefore should be
rejected. Thereafter, the engineer
advised his superiors of the deficiencies but his recommendations were
rejected. The engineer persisted with
his recommendations and was placed on probation with the warning that if his
job performance did not improve he would be terminated.
In finding that an engineer
does not have an ethical obligation to continue an effort to secure a change in
the policy of an employer under these circumstances, or to report his concerns
to the proper authority, we stated, nevertheless, that the engineer has an
ethical "right" to do so as a matter of personal conscience. We emphasized, however, that the case then
before us did not directly involve the protection of the public safety, health,
and welfare, but rather was an internal dispute between an employer and an
employee.
In addition, we found in Case
82-5 that the situation presented has become well known in recent years as
"whistleblowing" and if an engineer feels
strongly that an employer's course of action is improper when it relates to
public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to "blow the
whistle" to expose the facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the
price of loss of employment. We also
commented that in recent years, engineers have gone through such experiences
and even if they have ultimately prevailed on legal or political grounds, the
experience is not to be taken lightly.
We concluded that "the Code only requires that the engineer
withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances
involve endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare."
Clearly, the case presently
before the Board involves "endangerment to the public safety, health and
welfare" -- the contamination of the water supply -- and therefore it is
clear that Engineer A has an obligation to report the matter to his employer. Under the facts it appears that Engineer A
has fulfilled this specific aspect of his obligation by reporting his concerns
to City Administrator C and thereafter to certain members of the city
council. However, under the facts of
this case, we believe Engineer A had an ethical obligation under the Code to go
considerably farther.
As noted in Case 82-5 and in the Code, where an
engineer determines that a case may involve a danger to the public safety, the
engineer has not merely an "ethical right" but has an "ethical
obligation" to report the matter to the proper authorities and withdraw
from further service on the project. We
believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public
servant (city engineer and director of public works).
In the context of this case,
we do not believe that Engineer A's act of reporting his concerns to City
Administrator C or certain members of the city council constituted a reporting
to the "proper authorities" as intended under the Code. Nor do we believe, Engineer
A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds constitutes a
"withdrawal from further service on the project."
It is clear under the facts
of this case that Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for
the law by his immediate superior as well as members of the city council. After several attempts to modify the views of
her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that
the "proper authorities" were not the city officials, but more
probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority). We cannot find it credible that a City
Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized town would not be aware of
this basic obligation. Engineer A's
inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to
make Engineer A an "accessory" to the actions of City Administrator C
and the others.
It is difficult for us to say
exactly at what point Engineer A should have reported his concerns to the
"appropriate authorities."
However, we would suggest that such reporting should have occurred at
such time as Engineer A was reasonably certain that no action would be taken
concerning her recommendations either by City Administrator C or the members of
the city council and, that in his professional judgment, a probable danger to
the public safety and health then existed.
In addition, we find it
troubling that Engineer A would permit his professional integrity to be
compromised in the manner herein described.
As the legally established city engineer and director of public works,
Engineer A allowed his engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled
by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety. It is clear that Engineer A had an ethical
obligation to report this occurrence to the "proper authorities" as
stated above.
In closing, we must
acknowledge a basic reality that must confront all engineers faced with similar
decisions. As we noted in Cases 65-12
and 82-5, the engineer who makes the decision to "blow the whistle"
will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment. While
we recognize this sobering fact, we would be ignoring our obligation to the
Code and hence to the engineering profession if, in matters of public health
and safety, we were to decide otherwise.
For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be
compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave
damage to the image and interests of all engineers.
Conclusion:*
Engineer A did not fulfill his ethical obligations by
informing the City Administrator and certain members of the city council of her
concerns.
*Note: This opinion is based
on data submitted to the Board of Ethical Review and does not necessarily
represent all of the pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This opinion is for educational purposes only
and should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific
individuals. This opinion may be
reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included
before or after the text of the case.
Board of Ethical Review:
* Eugene N. Bechamps,
P.E. * Robert J. Haefeli,
P.E. * Robert W. Jarvis, P.E. * Lindley Manning, P.E.
* Paul E. Pritzker,
P.E. *
1996 NSPE Code of Ethics This
is the latest version of the code; an earlier version was used in this case.
_____________________________________________________________
A very important legal case
has unfolded in
Ed had been a highly regarded
and efficient City Engineer for
The AEA (American Engineering
Alliance) has concentrated its public relations effort on publicizing the Ed
Turner legal case in
The issues at stake in this
case are so critical to the very survival of the engineering profession that
AEA has committed considerable resources to seeing that Ed Turner prevails in
his lawsuit. AEA has taken the lead in
mobilizing support for Ed Turner within the engineering community. We intend to intensify our public relations
effort until the mass media picks up this story and starts covering this very
important case which has major implications not only for the engineering
community but also to the public at large
The following letter from the
Idaho Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Directors was received by
Engineering Times in response to the engineering ethics case involving NSPE
member Ed Turner and his former employer, the City of
The Ed Turner case has been
an emotionally charged issue in
Turner, a member of NSPE and
the Idaho Society of Professional Engineers, apprised the
Turner's case came up at
nearly every ISPE Board of Directors meeting for three years, and was discussed
often by members. Opinions varied from
total support for Turner to the belief that the city should have fired Turner
and retained another engineer. All ISPE
members contacted agreed responsible charge was the core issue, but there was
no consensus that Turner's supervisors pushed him to do work over which he did
not have responsible charge.
An
In dismissing Turner's case,
the court concluded that there was no basis for any of Turner's claims, either
as a matter in law or fact. Some of the
claims were set aside because of improper filing, which has resulted in a
malpractice lawsuit by Turner against his original legal counsel. The city also
counter-sued Turner for legal costs.
Rather than continue an uncertain and costly legal battle, Turner
settled with the city, agreed not to appeal his case, and paid the city $10,000
for legal costs.
The fact that the case was
never actually tried meant two things.
First, the claims and counter-claims were never completely analyzed,
debated, and resolved. Second, there was
no opportunity for NSPE, ISPE, or anyone else to testify on Turner's behalf, or
file a friend-of-the-court brief.
ISPE, NSPE, and the
Ed Turner was completely
vindicated in
Ed Turner was the City
Engineer of Idaho Falls, Idaho; he was there for over twenty seven years. About four years ago, there was a
reorganization of the
City Engineering Department, and a non Engineer was put in charge
of the Engineering Department. Ed was asked to sign documents over which he
did not have
responsible charge. Since this violated the
This case is extremely
important to the Engineering Profession, in that it re-affirmed the issue of
"Responsible Charge" as being central to the discharging of the responsibilities of the
Professional Engineer. Although the case was
a malpractice lawsuit, Ed's lawyer had to prove that his original case against
the city of
The American Engineering
Alliance, along with other Engineering Societies and many members of the Engineering
Community, supported Ed and his legal struggle over the years. Now that the Engineering Profession has won this major legal
victory, we need to publicize it to the rest of the Engineering Community and
the public.
______________________________________________________
Trench Boxes And The
Construction Site Social
Responsibility Versus Legal Liability
http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/trench/trench.htm June, 1992
Ethical Issues Of The Case
1) Where does the responsibility of the engineer end
and the responsibility of the
construction site contractor begin?
2) Should engineers allow construction workers to
endanger their lives by not using trench boxes on-site?
3) Should construction management be held responsible
for ensuring that trench boxes are used?
What is
their responsibility?
4) If social responsibility comes before legal
liability, what would you do in a similar situation,
given that the OSHA regulations make use of trench boxes
optional?
Synopsis
Trench digging is one of the
oldest types of construction work documented in history. Prior to World War II, trenches were dug by
hand. As workers dug trenches deeper,
the sides of the trench had to be shored, or supported, to keep the walls of
the trench from collapsing. Following
the war, innovations were made in cable backhoes, and trench digging disappeared
as an established profession. By the
1950's, hydraulically-actuated backhoes were developed, making it possible to
rapidly dig very deep trenches. As a
result of backhoe innovations, and because there were no workers inside the
trenches during digging, trench walls were no longer shored.
All trenches have what is
known as a stand-up time. The stand-up
time is the time that elapses from the time the trench is dug until the trench
walls start collapsing. Stand-up time is
dependent on many factors, including soil type, water content, trench depth,
weather conditions, and whether or not the soil has been previously
disturbed. Stand-up times can be as
short as zero seconds or as long as several months, and are difficult to
predict. Before trenches are dug,
someone can take soil samples as a means of estimating stand-up time; however,
soil conditions can be dramatically disparate only a few feet from where the
soil sample was taken.
After a trench is dug,
workers go down into the trench, performing whatever work is necessary, such as
laying pipe or telephone lines, welding pipe, or installing valves. If the walls of the trench are not supported,
there is the possibility that the walls will collapse and trap the workers in
the trench (see view of trench contained on the following page). Historically,
there have been between 100 and 300 people killed in the
Professional Responsibility And
Use Of Trench Boxes
The public has become
increasingly aware that industrial progress often has negative
side-effects. The place of engineers in
protecting the public from these negative effects is a controversial issue. This controversy becomes especially spirited
when moral responsibility may appear wider than legal responsibility. The use of trench boxes on construction sites
illustrates this debate.
A trench box (also called a
trench shield) may be placed in the trench to prevent trench failures from
injuring workers. A trench box consists
of two large plates, usually made of steel, which are parallel to the walls of
the trench, and horizontal cross-members which hold the two plates apart. The lower edge of the box rests on the bottom
of the trench, and the top edge extends above the tope of the trench. The workers stay between the plates of the
trench box, so that if the wall of the trench collapses, the dirt will be
stopped by the trench box. As work progresses,
the trench box is pulled along the trench with a backhoe.
Due to the added expense of
using the trench box, many contractors are reluctant to use them. They know that if a worker is killed or
injured in a trench wall collapse, State Workman's Compensation will cover all
medical expenses and reimburse the families of the deceased workers. Barring gross negligence, the families are
not allowed to sue in
When a construction project
requires a large excavation, such as digging the foundation for a tall
building, the support structure for the excavated walls is specified in the
plans. The main problem involving nonuse
of trench boxes occurs in cities, when water or sewer lines are being installed
or repaired. The engineer usually does
not specify the support structure for the trench on the plans, but leaves that
to the contractor.
In September 1987, a bill was
passed in
In January 1990, the law was
changed. Plans are now only required to
show the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
regulation for trench support on the plans, not the actual design of the support
system itself. It is up to the
contractor to provide a suitable support system for the trench. The OSHA regulation gives the following four
ways of providing for proper trench support:
1. Slope the sides of the
trench to a specified angle, thus eliminating the need for all support.
2. Look at the soil and
determine the type of support required from the tables provided in the OSHA
regulation.
3. Hire an engineer to design
a suitable support system.
4. Go to a trench wall
manufacturer and use their tables for determining the proper support system.
Engineering Design: Literature On
Social Responsibility Versus Legal Liability
Introduction
Litigation associated with
engineering design has escalated enormously over the last few decades, and has
increased the intensity of debates over whether engineers and their companies
should give priority to social responsibility or legal liability. Where does a design engineer and his/her company's responsibility
end and the responsibility of the subcontractor, manufacturer and consumer
begin? Liability is complicated by
the fact that law typically lags behind social costs associated with failed
design. In other words, legislation is
often after-the-fact, so how can an engineering firm justify its actions based
on current legal definitions? If a
company's design has adverse affects on the public welfare, laws must be
enacted to ensure that appropriate safety standards are met. Or, at the very least, legal suits are filed
so injured parties can be compensated and culprits penalized. This phenomenon has become particularly
critical regarding litigation involving engineering design and product
liability.
The public has become
increasingly aware that benefits of industrial progress are often associated
with negative side-effects. The
responsibility of engineers in protecting the public from these side-effects is
the focus of a lively debate. This is intensified by the fact that legal liability
and social responsibility may not always coincide.1
What should be said about the engineer's and his/her
company's social responsibility? Is it not their
job to act as society's protector?
Should social responsibility not precede any discussion of legal
liability? And should a design engineer
not take every precaution to ensure his/her company's product is safe before it
enters the market? Safety must be an
essential design consideration. As
Christopher D. Stone notes in his "Where the Law Ends: The Social Control
of Corporate Behavior,"
Even if we put aside the
defects in the impact of the sanctions, there still remains the problem that
law is primarily a reactive institution.
Lawmakers have to appreciate and respond to problems that corporate engineers,
chemists, and financiers were anticipating (or should have anticipated) long
before that the drugs their corporations are about to produce can alter
consciousness or damage the gene pool of the human race, that they are on the
verge of multinational expansion that will endow them with the power to trigger
worldwide financial crises in generally unforeseen ways, and so on. Even if laws could be passed to deal
effectively with these dangers, until they are passed a great deal of damage some
perhaps irreversible can be done. Thus,
there is something grotesque and socially dangerous in encouraging corporate
managers to believe that, until the law tells them otherwise, they have no
responsibilities beyond the law and their impulses (whether their impulses
spring from the id or from the balance sheet).
We do not encourage human beings to suppose so. And the dangers to
society seem all the more acute where corporations are concerned.2
Social Responsibility for Public Safety An Overview
With corporate
decision-making structures as the focus, we find that many of the difficult
ethical choices corporate managers and design engineers must make involve
conflicts regarding who is responsible for a given activity. Managers and engineers alike have different
obligations depending on their role within the corporation. Managers often perceive themselves as having
a special duty to protect the financial well-being of the company. Engineering codes assign to engineers special
duty to protect the public. Whether
these roles are appropriate and especially whether this narrow conception of
the role of managers is adequate is a matter of debate. As one writer has put it, "Corporate
role morality takes as given precisely what classical moral theory wishes to
evaluate, the worthiness of the duties assigned by one's role."3
If engineers do have a
special obligation to the health and safety of the public, an engineer must
often place his/her social responsibility over the objectives of his/her
employer. "Just as we must know the
rules of baseball to know what to do with the ball, so we must know engineering
ethics to know, for example, whether, as engineers, we should merely weigh
safety against the wishes of our employer or instead give safety preference
over those wishes."4
Sometimes a cost/benefit analysis is not enough, especially when
lives are at stake.
In his "Explaining
Wrongdoing," Michael Davis emphasizes the need for professionals to
distance themselves from a "microscopic" way of looking at their role
within the corporation, to look up from their given tasks to see the larger
implications of the work they perform for society. In essence,
Another example on the
importance of choosing social responsibility over the law involves the Soldier
of Fortune guns-for-hire classified advertising cases. In his article, Don Tomlinson asks whether we
are first professionals or first human beings.
While placing guns-for-hire advertisements was not illegal, it was
immoral, and people died because of the advertisements. Soldier of Fortune acted irresponsibly toward
the public, and "Law cannot shield anyone from the most basic duty all
human beings owe all other human beings: respect for life. Law and ethics are not one and the same.
Further, using law as a justification for conduct which is socially
irresponsible is socially irresponsible itself."7 The same duties apply to engineering
design and management.
Quality engineering is a
necessity. This means there is a need
for creative engineering and ethical corporate practice. The American Society of Civil Engineering Code of Ethics states that
"engineers must hold the public safety, welfare, and health paramount and
use our knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare."8
When engineers, managers, corporate owners,
contractors, subcontractors and inspectors take pride in and responsibility for
their designs the entire engineering profession benefits. According to Charlton Moorman, ethical
engineering practice positively affects engineering creativity,
and the "engineering profession benefits when ethics are followed and
creativity is used by the engineer.
When not followed, bad public relations are a possibility for the
engineer, the company employing the engineer and the profession in
general."9
Professional engineering
societies play a significant role in ensuring that safety standards are
maintained, and it is imperative that individual professional engineers adhere
to what his/her society mandates. Michael
Davis notes that in thinking like an engineer, one must remember the place of a
code of ethics in the practice of his/her profession:
Engineers should not only do
as their profession's code requires, but should also support it less directly
by encouraging others to do as it requires and by criticizing, ostracizing, or
otherwise calling to account those who do not.
They should support their
profession's code in these ways for at least four reasons: First,
engineers should support their profession's code because supporting it will
help protect them and those they care about from being injured by what other
engineers do. Second, supporting the code will also help assure each engineer a
working environment in which it will be easier than it would otherwise be to
resist pressures to do much that the engineer would rather not do. Third,
engineers should support their profession's code because supporting it helps
make their profession a practice of which they need not feel morally justified
embarrassment, shame, or guilt. And fourth, one has an obligation of
fairness to do his part insofar as he claims to be an engineer and other
engineers are doing their part in generating these benefits for all
engineers.10
Sometimes, however, even when
engineers meet their design obligations, failures still occur. What is the engineer's responsibility once
the design is handed over to a contractor, subcontractor or the consumer? Is the designer liable for aiding others in
the use of a product? What criteria can
the engineer invoke? In his "Charity and the Duty to Rescue," John
Whelan says, "there is not a duty to aid; however, many failures to aid
deserve moral criticism; and some of them deserve very serious moral
criticism."11 He
notes that one must distinguish between morally objectionable failures to aid
and those which are merely failures of consideration. They are distinguishable by knowing what the
obligations of the rescuer (or in this case, the engineer) are. "Knowledge
(or any reasonable belief)...is relevant to any obligation. ...what matters[; however,] is whether you can do something about
it."12 In
determining whether you are obligated to do something to prevent harm to
others, two of his six rules apply directly to engineering design: 1) that
there is sufficient professional reason to believe that you can prevent
unreasonable danger at little cost to yourself; and 2) that you do not have
sufficient reason to believe someone else can prevent harm if you do not.13 This raises serious questions about the
meaning of 'safety' and 'unreasonable danger' as design considerations.
One of the problems is that
engineers are often not educated to look at notions of "unreasonably
dangerous products." In his work,
D. Muster uses the analogy of medical health practitioners to encourage a
forensic approach to engineering. "Some engineers tend to ignore design
considerations that cannot be quantified easily for analysis or, at least, they
consider them to be of less importance than others which lend themselves
readily to being modelled and analysed."14 For Muster, the real problem engineers face
is that they are not properly educated in product liability law and the legal
concept of an "unreasonably dangerous product," so they do not fully
appreciate when they are ethically obligated to assist others in the product
chain.
Strict liability for a
defective product falls into three categories, and all three are significant in
the chain: design, manufacturing, and marketing. In particular, Muster notes that "A
marketing defect is synonymous with the failure of a manufacturer to give
adequate warnings and instructions for the proper use of his product."15 This is also true
for the designer. When looking at
whether there was an "unreasonable" danger, courts test the product
as to whether it was: state-of-the-art, an unavoidably unsafe product, misused
by the user, or misused in a way that could have been foreseen.
Like the other authors,
Muster argues that safety is an essential design consideration, and, given all
the educational programs and literature available to engineers, "no
designer can claim the information on which to base a safe design is unavailable."16 He further notes,
like Stone, that most design changes are directly attributable to product
liability litigation, and that safe products are part of good business
practice. Thus, safety is seen as the
absence of unreasonable danger. Anything
short of that can be considered morally unacceptable. Yet, morally unacceptable conduct continues
apace, and the amount of litigation escalates. So, let us look at the
consequences for the engineering profession.
Legal and Social Consequences for the Engineering
Profession
As we have already pointed
out, claims against design professionals and their companies are on the
increase. Even if the professional
engineer believes he/she has done everything to avoid "unreasonable"
danger, accidents happen, and designers are increasingly held liable for
construction and product mishaps. Engineers must, therefore, familiarize
themselves with the legal doctrines of informed consent, novel tort remedies
and reforms, third-party liability issues, liability insurance and legislative
lobbying techniques.
The legal doctrine of
informed consent is based on tort law. In A History and Theory of Informed
Consent, a "tort" is defined as "a civil injury to one's person
or property that is intentionally or negligently inflicted by another and that
is measured in terms of, and compensated by, money damages."17 Any failure to
obtain informed consent in situations where it is legally required is
considered a "tort." While the
book deals almost exclusively with medical ethics, the implications
for engineering designers is clear.
In recent years, a novel
theory of tort remedy, the "Hedonic tort," is becoming more
prominent. The "Hedonic tort" remedy considers as its base the theory
of individual happiness, and its attributes include "quality of life
factors such as environmental standards, quality of education, weather, and the
amounts of time spent pursuing vocations."18 According to Jack Karns,
individual happiness is based on three factors: "a. degree of moral
virtue, b. degree of good fortune with which the individual is blessed, and c.
[and most important for the design engineer's consideration] whether a tragic
choice is made based on circumstances beyond someone's control."19 Hedonic
damage suits could conceivably ruin a professional's (and his/her firm's)
reputation, never mind financial viability to practice. Thus, this theory of tort remedy could have
significant impacts on product design, incorporating additional safety features
in order to minimize such damage claims.
One of the problems
associated with tort reform, however, is the issue of insurance. Because claims have increased substantially
in the last few decades, battles over reform have escalated since the early
1980's. As Dennis Schapker
notes, many firms have responded to these increased claims by dropping their
insurance coverage's of 1990, 21% of all design firms were uninsured. This percentage of uninsured firms does not
bode well for the engineering profession as a whole. Thus, he argues that design professionals
must get involved in the debate over tort reform.20 This call to action becomes
more urgent as designers are increasingly being held responsible for negligence
in their work (including the work of their subcontractor), despite written
contract disclaimers aimed at defending their interests. Civil Engineering
notes that "the privity of contract defense is
no longer an absolute shield that design professionals may use to protect
themselves from liability to third parties."21 Thus, engineers must know about tort
reform and liability insurance in a way that was unnecessary even a few years
ago.
While insurance is not an
excuse for unprofessional behavior, engineers must know more about it. In his case study of an insurance carrier,
Randall Horne notes that, "With the ever-increasing tendency toward litigation,
clients have begun to view their design professional's liability insurance as a
potential source of full reimbursement for any damages they may incur."22 This can be a
paralyzing concept for the engineer, to say the very least. Claims against designers not only mean increased
insurance expenses, but also loss of the good will of clients and a tarnished
reputation that can harm future business prospective. "Although it may be difficult to assign
a monetary value to these losses, it is not difficult to imagine that they
could be career or at least business threatening."23
Thus, engineers must get
involved, as must their societies. The
nature of engineering in the
If engineers are better
educated about the litigation process, perhaps they can better serve society at
large. The courts are siding with contractors, which means that the public feels engineers
should continue answering for their designs on site. And maybe they should take a more active
role. The only way to know for sure that
their design instructions are being adhered to is by getting involved, and
knowing what both their social as well as legal responsibilities are. Only then can they determine, and influence
society at large about, the benefits from their work.
Ethical Issues Of The Case
Points For Discussion
In the light of the essay in
the previous section, how would you say the social contract between engineering
professionals and the public applies to the use of trench walls?
In "Professional
Responsibility for Harmful Actions," Martin Curd and Larry May propose the
following simplified account of professional responsibility embodying a rather
crude model of negligence:
The Malpractice Model of
Professional Responsibility: A professional, S, is negligent and hence
responsible for the harm he or she causes, if his or her behavior fits the
following pattern:
1) as
a member of his or her profession, S has a duty to conform to the standard
operating procedures of his or her profession;
2) at
time t, action X conforms to the standard operating procedures of S's
profession;
3) S omits to perform X at
time t;
4) harm
is caused to some person, P, as a result of S's failure to do X; that is, if S
had done X, then the harm to P would not have occurred.25
Is there a violation of this model when engineers
allow construction sites to operate without the safety feature of trench
boxes? If not, is the model itself
defective? If so, how should it be
changed? Assume that a patient in a
local hospital with a serious malady has a doctor who believes he is not
knowledgeable enough about that malady. He goes to his medical colleagues on
the hospital staff and asks their advice.
They all refuse to talk to him, since the patient is not theirs. They cite possible malpractice liability
insurance problems as their reason. They
believe existing state-level "good-samaritan"
laws will not protect them in these circumstances. Does this mean the patient has to hire the
other expert doctors to protect himself? What if the patient is not even aware of
their refusal to cooperate and is never told about it? Certainly, this analogy pertains to the use
of trench boxes.
Annotated Bibliography
Curd,
Martin and May, Larry, "Professional Responsibility for Harmful
Actions," Module Series in Applied Ethics, Center for the Studies of
Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology, 1984.
This essay explores the
grounds on which professionals should be held responsible for harms caused by
their actions. Most of the examples are about engineers, designers, and
architects involved in real-life cases from tort law.
Davis, Michael,
"Thinking Like An Engineer: The Place of a Code
of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession," Philosophy & Public
Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 2, Spring 1991, pp. 150-167. (see
also, "Explaining Wrongdoing," Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 20,
Numbers 1&2, Spring/Fall 1989, pp. 74-90.)
In these lucid essays,
Muster, D., "Safety and
Reasonable Danger as Design Criteria for Engineers: Some Effects of Products
Liability Law on Engineering Design," Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part B, Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 204, No.
B3, 1990, pp. 185-190.
This paper discusses issues
of safety and the concept of "unreasonable" danger in engineering
design. Using a medical analogy, Muster argues that engineers must aim at
forensic engineering, relying on moral considerations as well as technical considerations
in design. He further discusses product
liability laws and their impact on engineering design.
Faden, Ruth R. and Beauchamp, Tom L., "A History and
Theory of Informed Consent,"
This book defines and discusses
the legal doctrine of informed consent, by looking at tort and constitutional
law as it applies to medical ethics.
Although written for and about medical ethics, the book's message has
value for engineering ethics as well.
Friedlander, Mark C., "A Legislative Agenda to Curb
Liability Lawsuits," Consulting/Specifying Engineer, Vol. 7, March 1990,
pp. 27-32.
Attorney Friedlander
argues that professional societies must get involved in lobbying for
legislation that protects engineers against frivolous malpractice claims.
Horne, Randall M.,
"Understanding Terra RRG Professional Liability Insurance," Journal
of Professional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 116, July 1990, pp. 239-249.
This article presents a case
study of one insurance carrier. Horne shows how important it is for engineers
to understand liability insurance, especially given the rise in litigation in
the past decades.
Karns, Jack P., "Economics, Ethics and Tort Remedies:
Emerging Concept of Hedonic Value," Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9,
September 1990, pp. 707-713.
This article discusses a
novel tort remedy, the Hedonic tort, based on the concept of quality of life
and the theory of individual happiness.
He argues that this tort remedy will have a significant impact on
product design, as a move is made to ensure greater product safety.
"Liability of a Design
Professional for Impact Costs of a Subcontractor," Civil Engineering
(American Society of Civil Engineers), Vol. 59, January 1989, p. 30.
This article shows how design
engineers are being held responsible for negligence in both their work and the
work of their subcontractors.
Moorman, Charlton
This short article stresses
the importance of ethical behavior for engineering creativity. Moorman argues
that engineers must hold the public safety foremost while designing for the
market.
Nesteruk, Jeffrey, "The Ethical Significance of Corporate
Law," Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10, No. 9, September 1991, pp.
723-727.
In this article, the focus is
on corporate decision-making structures, and conflicts regarding particular
role obligations. Nesteruk argues that as laws
change, so do the roles of people in the corporate hierarchy, thereby creating
problems for the legal aspects of corporate social responsibility.
Robinson,
This article discusses safety
as a critical ingredient for transport engineers and their managers.
Schapker, Dennis R., "Tort Reform and Design
Professionals," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 116,
July 1990, pp. 258-265.
This article discusses the
battle over tort reform and how it has affected the engineering profession
since 1980. It is a call for engineers
to get involved in the debate.
Stone, Christopher D.,
"Where the Law Ends: The Social Control of Corporate Behavior,"
This book looks at corporate
moral behavior; in particular, how law is a reaction to misdeeds in business
behavior. Stone provides a thorough, albeit negative analysis of corporate
ethics, and provides recommendations for promoting ethical behavior. Although
written in 1975, the book still holds value for the student interested in the
issue of social responsibility versus legal liability.
Tomlinson, Don E.,
"Choosing Social Responsibility Over Law: The Soldier of Fortune
Classified Advertising Cases," Business and Professional Ethics, Vol. 9,
Nos. 1&2, Spring-Summer 1990, pp. 79-96.
This article discusses the
ethics of the Soldier of Fortune's guns-for-hire advertisements that resulted
in several murders across the
Whelan, John M. Jr.,
"Charity and the Duty to Rescue," Social Theory and Practice, Vol.
17, Fall 1991, pp. 441-56.
This article discusses those
classes of action and inaction that can be seen as morally objectionable
failures to aid. He argues that one cannot simply weigh the competing interests
of the savior and victim, that what matters is whether, as a professional, you
are in a position to help.
_________________________