Case Analysis for EN philosophy

2- Engineer A received a phone on the month of June 2000 from the bridge inspector who advised him that the bridge needed to be closed down on the basis that it posed a significant threat to human life since the wood used for construction had begun rotting.

3- Engineer A followed the instruction of the bridge inspector by barricading the road using all sorts of landmarks and road signs.

4- Within a time frame of three weeks, Engineer A had the full confirmation of the bridged to be replaced through the erection of seven more piles.

5- The decision was finally made by a retired bridge inspector, who was identified as a non-engineer, to replace the seven rotten piles with two piles but give a 5-ton limit to the bridge users. Apparently, no follow-up was taken.

6- Assumption: the bridge users would appreciate and respect a 5-ton limit provisional guideline.

II. Dilemma

D1: Engineer A can file another report to have the bridge be repaired and replace the seven piles or not

D2: Filing another report violates section III.8.a code of ethics that sensitizes on a strict adherence and conformity to the state laws that affirm that individual practicing engineering should respect the decision made by their relevant registration bodies. On the other hand, maintaining silence because his earlier decision to replace the rotten piles with seven fresh piles had been overruled violates section II.1 of code of ethics that holds engineers accountable for not making requisite decisions real time to address matters pertaining to the public safety, health and welfare.

2.1 Engineer A preforming his professional task by filling another report regarding the assumption of the set clear guideline of not exceeding 5-ton with the full knowledge that his earlier decision has been overruled by the state officials brands the whole scenario an unethical and with casual awareness regarding the violation of the NSPE code section I.1.

2.2 Conversely, taking the platform as a professionally confirmed engineer to assume such critical matters at the expense of not protecting the public interest in terms of health and safety is perceived as a serious breach and high level of violation of the violation of the NSPE code of ethics, particularly with regards to the section II.1 of the code of ethics.

D3: Not conforming to the provisions set by the public works and suing the retired non-engineer bridge inspector for non-consistent to integrity cases is perceived as a violation of the fundamental Canon 4 of the NSPE code since there exists a clearly defined set of protocols to be followed.

3.1: filing a second report with regards to the current state of the bridge and the nature of its users is perceived as an absolute disrespect to the higher management that may come adverse consequences. In view of the contest of the NSPE code of ethics, it is advisable to follow clear set protocols.

3.2: respecting the decision of the higher management at a time when the public safety and health is at risk would further violate the fundamental Canon 3 on the basis of a high level of negligence of a professional obligation.

III. Resolution

A. Recommendation: it would be imperative based on the facts of the case for the aforementioned Engineer A to take the task upon himself and file the second report to either close the bridge completely or replace the seven piles as earlier set by the quality assurance team.

B. Justification: False Dichotomy

1- Recommending that the bridge is repaired as earlier set by the quality assurance team by replacing the seven rotten piles is a viable option for the management of the public works to consider.

2- In as much filing the second report would send some signal of disrespect to the management board within the public works, Engineer A acts in the best interest of the nation since public safety and health is at risk.

3- Exposing the ills displayed by the entire management of the public works such as allowing overweight traffic pass on the bridge whose safety is compromised does not tarnish the reputation of the engineering board. This is a matter national interest that focuses on protecting the interest of the public. It would be a plus for the aforementioned engineer to have the bridge be repaired.

C. Contingency:

In the event that a complaint has been filed by a community member or just a stranger using the bridge about the bridge susceptibility to a high level of risk then Engineer A has the full authority and the advantage to filing another report to have the bridge be repaired. In this regard, it would be a clean pass simply because of addressing fundamental concerns as appertains to the health and safety of the public. In the event that the second report is not awarded the requite attention by the management of the public works, then according to the guidelines and provisions of NSPE code of ethics, particularly with regards to section II.1 of the code of ethics, the Engineer should pursue the full litigation of the law.