Reference no: EM133607805

Question: Write a letter( including 5 paragraghs about your assessment and recommendation) of advice to Sue as a consultant. Make sure your responses are realistic to her dilemma trying to keep her job and yet protect public health. Here is the case:

"Sue has a problem. A compound emitted from the stack of the plant where she is employed has been linked by several studies to respiratory problems which can be severe in a small percentage of the population. The compound has not been regulated by the EPA, perhaps because it is relatively rare in industrial processes. Its elimination will be expensive, and it may force the elimination of the product line that produces the questionable compound. This would lead to the elimination of a number of jobs in a small community which is heavily dependent on the plant for employment for its citizens. An added dimension is that the product line could become very successful in the future, thus adding jobs in the community, which is in need of more sources of employment.

Sue's supervisor instructs her not to bring up the issue in hearings with EPA officials. He believes he has a good chance of delaying any final action on the issue for several years at least, and by that time a modification in the process may eliminate the compound. He argues that the evidence for the health problems supposedly produced by the compound is questionable, and that the health problems are not fatal in any case. "I'm going to fight them as long as I can on this one," he says. How should Sue respond?

Sue finds herself in a conflict problem, pulled by two opposing obligations, both of which find justification in her professional code. On the one hand, the first Fundamental Canon" of the code of ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) says: "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties." On the other hand, the fourth Fundamental Canon of the NSPE code says, "Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees."

Furthermore, the obligation to the public itself pulls her in two different directions. Sue believes she has an obligation to protect the physical health of the community. But doesn't she have an obligation to be concerned with the economic health of the community as well? In fact, if the people of the community were asked to give advice to Sue, they would probably side with the manager in advocating that the new product line be continued, with its promise of more jobs and wealth for the community. They would do this, even though they would also be the ones most likely to suffer from the respiratory problems. This being the case, does Sue have a right to act in a paternalistic way toward her fellow employees, deciding that their economic well-being is not as important as their health?"