Introuduction to Civil Eng. class the assigment is about the Ethics - Essay Example

A field technician, employed by an environmental engineering consulting firm, sampled the contents of drums located on the property of a client at the direction of the Engineer supervising him. Based on his earlier experience, he was of the opinion that these drums contained hazardous waste. In case of his hypothesis turning out to be true, there are certain steps that had to be taken in order to transport and dispose of the drum properly, which included notifying the proper federal and state authorities.

However, when he asked his supervisor what to do with the samples, the engineer told him that the technician was merely to document their existence but not to test them. The supervising Engineer also said that since the firm was involved in other business with this client as well, the former would only inform the clients about the location of the drums and nothing else; that is what the engineer did, including suggesting to the client that the drums be removed. The client thereafter contacted another firm to have the material removed.

The Board decided that the engineer was wrong, as his prime concern should have been public safety.The problem that arises here is whether the engineer should disclose the facts to proper authorities for the public welfare, or stay true to the confidentiality clause ;though the Code dictates that the confidentiality of the client should be maintained at all times (Section III.4) and that information regarding the client should not be disclosed without the client’s consent (Section II.1.c), however, it also lays down quite emphatically that the safety, health and welfare of the public should be paramount (Section I.

1, Section II.1) and that in case their professional judgment is overruled by such concerns, they should notify their employer (Section II.1.a). So, even though the engineer could say that he was protecting the confidentiality clause, he should have informed the proper authorities, or his employer, based on public safety concerns. The engineer was supposed to act with objectivity and integrity (Section II.3.a, Section III.1), and was not to do anything that discredited his profession or deceived the public (Section III.3).The engineer owed the duty to his client as well as the public, which included the employees of his client, to report the matter to his client as well as to the proper authorities.

He should have made sure that the hazardous waste was properly disposed off, as laid down by the law. However, on the same note, he was to keep the information of the client confidential. Perhaps, that is why the engineer could have decided not to disclose the information.The engineer, however, did not make the right decision as it was not the confidentiality of his client which he was striving to protect. During all this time, his prime concern was the business relationship that his firm had with the client.

The Code dictates that the primary obligation of the engineer is public safety, and the Board has given many decisions, whereby even the confidentiality of the client can be breached to inform proper authorities in case of public safety being endangered. It was clear by the conduct of the engineer, as he did not even inform his client about the hazardous waste, that his concern was neither the public safety, nor the confidentiality of his client. Therefore, the board was right in taking punitive action against him.