When facing a real dilemma, professionals are expected to use a structured moral-reasoning process rather than react instinctively. Andrews et al. and most regulators present a similar sequence:
- Identify the ethical problem and gather all relevant facts. Separate facts from assumptions.
- Identify the stakeholders affected and the duties owed to each (public, client, employer, profession, self).
- Consult the code of ethics, the Act, regulations, and standards for governing rules.
- Generate alternative courses of action.
- Evaluate each alternative against the code and the ethical theories (test outcomes, duties, rights, and what a person of integrity would do).
- Choose and act, ensuring the paramount duty to the public is satisfied.
- Reflect on the outcome and document the reasoning.
🧠 Memory hook: Facts → Stakeholders → Rules → Options → Evaluate → Act → Reflect.
A useful cross-check is the publicity (or "newspaper") test: would you be comfortable if your decision were reported on the front page? Combined with the reversibility test (would you accept this if you were the affected party?), these guard against rationalization.
Exam tip: The first step is almost always to gather facts / define the problem, not to act, resign, or report. Beware answer choices that leap straight to a dramatic action before the facts are clear. Equally, "do nothing" is rarely correct when public safety is implicated.