Ethical situation found in the story, “The engineer’s thumb”

The story, “The engineer’s thumb,” is a story about a doctor, who received a patient one morning with a thumb injury. The patient, Mr. Heatherly, who was also an engineer, had lost his thumb in an incident dating a year back, but was not comfortable with telling the doctor about the injury before telling the police. Upon some bit of deliberation, the doctor accompanied him to Sherlock Holmes, where he was able to narrate to them his ordeal. He told them of his experience, narrating to them that he was to go and do some repair for a hydraulic machine used for excavation, but was not able to do the repair as was planned. Instead, his German client, who was offering him a tidy sum for the repair got curious and attempted to crush him with the machine. After being saved from the situation by a woman in the facility, he found himself one morning and found his way back to the train station from where he was picked by the client while going for the job. However, what he did not realize was that it was a year since the incident happened, and he ended up losing his thumb, as well as what he was to be paid for the work.

From the short story, it is possible to determine that Mr. Hatherley acted in defiance to some of the codes of ethics that guide engineering practices. In reference to the fundamental cannons that guide engineering practice, one of the professional duties of an engineer is to conduct him or herself lawfully and ethically. After the determination that the German client was involved in an unlawful business, one of the considerations that Mr. Hatherley would have heeded to would be to forfeit any involvement in the business. It was possible for him to tell that the German was not conducting a legal excavation since in their discussion; the client mentions that he was not willing to, “…raise eyebrows.” With this provision, it would be possible to determine that the engineer acted against the fundamental engineering canons by agreeing to the deal.

According to one of the professional obligations of engineers, engineers should not involve themselves with practices that are deceptive to the public. For this reason, it is possible to determine that engineers should be able to avoid making statements that contain material representations, of the exclusion of material fact. From the story, there is a possibility of insinuating that the engineer was not telling the truth when he told the German that he would be able to advise him on what he could do with the powerful machine (15), yet he was also wondering why the machine was developed for the presupposed inadequate purpose it was serving. Essentially, he might have been curious to determine what was being excavated in the piece of land. The other professional obligation that guides engineers in their practice includes the fact that they should not use an association with a corporation, partnership, or a non-engineering entity for some unethical acts. Mr. Hatherley should have been able to determine that the German client was involving himself in unethical practices since he did not want to be noticed by the authorities, who might have to question the excavation going on in the area, or they might reclaim the land from the colonel.

References

Hansen, K. L., and Zenobia, K. E. “Civil engineer’s handbook of professional practice”. Pg 78. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (2011).

Moaveni, S. “Engineering fundamentals: An introduction to engineering”. Pg 111-115. Pacific Grove, Calif: Nelson Engineering. (2010).