Assignment 75

Delp10

W7_Professional_Ethics_Code.pdf

Home >Nursing homework help >Assignment 75

Professional Code of Ethics – Case Studies

EE & CE 200 Fall 2020

Outline NSPE Code of Ethics

- The Fundamental Cannons

- Rules of Practice

- Professional Obligations

Case Studies

- A number of case studies

Professional Code • The subject is encountered when students start employment. • Normally include core values of a profession. • Codes can embody professional ethics, but they are different

from professional ethics. • Usually written, and often promoted by a professional

organization. • Codes are one manner of articulating and sharing professional

ethics. • Other option – Oath • Reinforce profession-specific goals • Used by organizations to increase integrity and reduce

corruption

• Professional engineer (PE) • Hold professional license, member of NSPE • Providing professional services to public, clients or government

• PE are governed by statute and have very formal code of ethics • NSPE published first version of code of ethics in 1952, several

revisions until present form • It consists of three sections:

I. Fundamental cannons = fundamental principles II. Rules of practice = practical implementation of cannons III. Professional obligations = specifies guidelines for professional

conduct

• Guidelines and principles for evaluation of ethical conflicts • Not laws but often basis for laws • Formally accepted by professional engineers

• Many companies realize that ethical behavior is essential for their long term prosperity • Realize that ethical behavior is essential for their long term prosperity

NSPE – Code of Ethics (1)

(2)

(3)

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the

public. 2. Perform

services only in areas of their competence.

5. Engineers shall avoid

deceptive acts.

3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective

and truthful manner

4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents

or trustees.

6. Conduct honorably,

responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to

enhance the honor, reputation,

and usefulness of the profession.

The Fundamental

Cannons

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

a. If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and

such other authority as may be appropriate.

c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior

consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by

law or this Code.

b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents

that are in conformity with applicable standards.

e. Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.

d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in

business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged

in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise

f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when

relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in

furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.

2. Engineers shall Perform

services only in areas of

their competence.

a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified

by education or experience in the specific technical fields

involved

b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which

they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their

direction and control.

c. Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign and seal the engineering

documents for the entire project, provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed only

by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.

a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should

bear the date indicating when it was current.

b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and

competence in the subject matter.

c. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical matters that are inspired or paid for

by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on

whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have in the

matters.

3. Engineers shall issue public

statements only in an objective

and truthful manner

4. Act for each employer or client

as faithful agents or trustees.

a. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.

b. Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party for services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties.

c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible.

d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a governmental or quasi-governmental body or department shall not participate in decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their organizations in private or public engineering practice.

e. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental body on which a principal or officer of their organization serves as a member.

5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts

a. Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates’ qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.

b. Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work, except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.

Professional Obligations

1. A Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.

2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.

3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public.

4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve..

5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests.

Professional Obligations

6. Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods..

7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action.

8. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities, provided, however, that engineers may seek indemnification for services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the engineer’s interests cannot otherwise be protected.

9. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.

Please refer to the NSPE code ethics for engineers for sub clauses of the

professional obligations

For discussion on case studies, please refer to the supplementary material.

Activity

Cases Studies

General Guidelines to Solve Ethics • Make use of value based terminologies as much as

possible

• Understand basic difference between ethical decision and legal decision

• Make use of ethical reasoning/ moral imagination

• Based on ethical reasoning/moral imagination raise questions

Ethical Decision Making Model - ISSUES

• Identify issue and decision-making process

• Study the facts

• Select reasonable options

• Understand values & duties

• Evaluate & justify options

• Sustain and review the plan

Ethical decision-making models provide a suggested mechanism for critical thinking and planning for the resolution of ethical dilemmas.

Case Study 1: COPYRIGHT – DUTY TO REPORT VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LICENSING AGREEMENT

Facts:

Engineer A is employed by SPQ Engineering, an engineering firm in private practice involved in the design of bridges and other structures. As part of its services, SPQ Engineering uses a CAD software design product under a licensing agreement with a vendor. Under the terms of the licensing agreement, SPQ Engineering is not permitted to use the software at more than one workstation without paying a higher licensing fee.

SPQ Engineering ignores this restriction and uses the software at a number of employee workstations. Engineer A becomes aware of this practice and calls a "hotline" publicized in a technical publication and reports his employer’s activities.

Question:

Was it ethical for Engineer A to report his employer’s apparent violation of the licensing agreement on the "hotline" without first discussing his concerns with his employer?

Case Study 1: COPYRIGHT – DUTY TO REPORT VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LICENSING AGREEMENT

NSPE Code of Ethics References:

Section II.1.c - Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by

law or this Code.

Section II.1.e - Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant,

also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing

such information or assistance as may be required.

Section II.4 - Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

Section III.10 - Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.

Conclusion:

It was not ethical for Engineer A to report his employer's apparent violation of

the licensing agreement on the "hotline" without first discussing his concerns

with his employer.

Case Study 2: Copyright—Using Unlicensed Proprietary Software to Create a New Software Product Facts:

Engineer A is a software systems engineer hired by NewSoft, a start-up company, to help in the development of a new software product. Engineer A soon learns that the plans for the proposed new product will be based upon proprietary software for which NewSoft does not have a license. Engineer A assumes that this is some sort of mistake and speaks to the company president about the matter. Engineer A is assured by the company president that the situation will be rectified. But several months pass, and no licenses have been secured for the proprietary software. Repeated efforts by Engineer A to get the NewSoft leadership to address this issue have failed. Engineer A is uncertain as to what steps he/she should take next.

Question:

What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?

Case Study 2: Copyright—Using Unlicensed Proprietary Software to Create a New Software Product NSPE Code of Ethics References:

• Section I.6. - Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

• Section II.1.c. - Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.

• Section II.4. - Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

• Section II.4. a. - Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.

Case Study 3: Employment—Cash Door Prize

Facts:

Engineer A works for UVW Engineering. As part of Engineer A’s activities and employment responsibilities on behalf of UVW Engineering, he attends various conferences and trade shows. While attending a recent conference and trade show at UVW Engineering’s expense, Engineer A won a door prize worth $5,000.

Question:

Would it be ethical for Engineer A to keep the door prize or is he required to remit the prize to UVW Engineering?

Case Study 3: Employment—Cash Door Prize

NSPE Code of Ethics References:

• Section II.4.c. - NSPE Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible.

• Section III.5.b. - NSPE Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances, directly or indirectly, from contractors or other parties dealing with clients or employers of the engineer in connection with work for which the engineer is responsible.

• Section III.9.e. - NSPE Code of Ethics: Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and should keep current in their specialty fields by engaging in professional practice, participating in continuing education courses, reading in the technical literature, and attending professional meetings and seminars.

Case Study 4: Confidentiality – Records Relating to Services to Former Client

• Facts:

• Several years ago Engineer A, a mechanical engineer, consulted for Company A, a pressure vessel manufacturer, on a specific pressure vessel problem relating to the design of a boiler system. Engineer A’s work focused on specific design and manufacturing defects that caused deterioration of the boiler system. Engineer A completed his work and was paid for his services.

• Ten years later, Engineer A was retained by, Attorney X, plaintiff in a case involving the fatal explosion of a recently designed and manufactured pressure vessel at a facility previously owned by Engineer A’s former client, Company A. The facility was sold to Company B seven years before the explosion.

• The litigation does not involve any of the issues related to the services Engineer A provided to Company A ten years earlier.

• The defendant’s attorney discovered through Engineer A’s deposition and statements relating to his professional experience that Engineer A had worked for Company A on a pressure vessel problem. Engineer A explains to the defendant’s attorney that he is not relying upon any of his prior work for Company A in this case. evertheless, the defendant’s attorney requests that Engineer A provide his files from the previous work performed for Company A.

• Question:

• Would it be ethical for Engineer A to voluntarily release the files to defense counsel?

Case Study 4: Continue….

NSPE Code of Ethics References:

• Section II.1.c - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.

• Section II.4. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

• Section III.4.b. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, participate in or represent an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the Engineer has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer.

Conclusion:

It would not be ethical for Engineer A to voluntarily release the files to the defense counsel.

Case Study 4:

Case Study 5: Discovering Embedded Comments in Electronic Documents Damaging to Adversary Facts:

Engineer A is a forensic engineer and is hired by Plaintiff Attorney Y in a product liability case to review technical attachments that are part of settlement documents. The documents are relayed by Defense Attorney X to Plaintiff Attorney Y who then e-mails them to Engineer A. Engineer A’s computer has commonly available commercial software that reveals embedded notes in the original document, which includes comments that are damaging to the interests of Defense Attorney X’s interests. Engineer A reads the comments and realizes the implications of the comments.

Question:

What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?

Case Study 5: Discovering Embedded Comments in Electronic Documents Damaging to Adversary NSPE Code of Ethics References:

• Section I.6. - Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

• Section II.1.c. - Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.

• Section II.4. - Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

• Section II.4.a. - Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.

Conclusion:

Engineer A had an ethical duty to immediately advise his client, Plaintiff Attorney Y, of the fact that Defense Attorney X’s comments had been revealed to Engineer A. In addition, Engineer A may be required to suspend further action in this matter pending the court’s resolution of the issue.

Thank you!

http://hofstetterlandscaping.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/questions.jpg