Smiths Dilemma
Essay Preview: Smiths Dilemma
Report this essay
Smiths dilemma is a situation that is presumably commonplace in the practice of professional engineering today. We find the corporation, ACME Property Holdings, striving to maximize their profit by eliminating the remedial action they take before selling a property. Although a report is made on the structural stability of the building, it is kept confidential and as such the public buyer of the building is not made aware of the structural state of the property. The engineer, Smith, investigating the building finds electrical deficiencies, and because they are not within his realm of expertise (electrical rather than civil) he does not include them in the report but does report them to ACME. In the interest of making the sale and maximizing their profit, ACME does not report these deficiencies to the buyer. This leaves Smith in a difficult situation; and the action he is required to take is alluded to within the Ontario Professional Engineering Act, Section 77, The Code of Ethics. This essay will outline the action he is required to take by invoking the following sections of the code: subsection (1)(i) and (ii) and subsection (2)(i). It will conclude with a specific list of the action(s) that Smith should take, to fulfil his obligations the public as a professional engineer while remaining within the confines of the Engineering Code of Ethics.
Subsections (1)(i) and (ii) of the Ontario Code of Ethics present what seems to conflicting requirements when applied to the situation at hand. They state: “It is the duty of the practitioner to the public, to the practitioners employer, to the practitioners clients, to the other members of the practitioners profession, and to the practitioner to act at all times with, (i) fairness and loyalty to the practitioners associates, employers, clients, subordinates and employees, (ii) fidelity to public needs[2]” The term fidelity is defined by Websters Dictionary of Law [1] as: “Faithfulness to obligations duties or observances.” To clearly define what the duty of a professional engineer to the public is, one should refer to Section (2)(i) of the Ontario Code of Ethics. It states: “A practitioner shall (i) regard the duty to the public welfare as paramount.[2]” The term “welfare” is defined by Websters Dictionary Revised Unabridged Dictionary [3] as: ” Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.” Thus, Sections(1)(ii) and (2)(i) of the Code clearly state that Smiths first duty or obligation is the heath and safety of the public, which would be compromised if the faulty wiring identified during his testing went unreported to the purchaser of the building.
However, as stated in the previous paragraph, Section (1)(i) of the Code calls for the fair and loyal treatment of both employers and clients. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language [4] defines the term clients as: ” The party for which professional services are rendered, as by an attorney. The same dictionary defines the term employee as: ” To engage the services of; put to work.” In this case, ACME Property Holdings Inc. is both a client to Smith, and an employer of Smith, and the treatment of ACME must fall in line with Section (1)(i) of the Code. There are three key points of note when determining the required course of action on the part of Smith. One, the report that was written on the structural integrity of the building was deemed confidential prior to the writing under contract, and as stated in (1)(i) of the Code should remain so. Secondly, not only was Smith aware prior to performing the inspection that ACME would not be taking any remedial action to repair or renovate systems prior to the building sale, but of paramount importance is the point that any contract entered into on the part of the purchaser and ACME is not within Smiths responsibility or jurisdiction relative to this case. Lastly, since the electrical deficiencies were not reported within the report but rather verbally to the ACME Corporation, they do not fall under the blanket of confidentiality, and thus are not governed by Section (1)(i) of the Code.
The steps