Susan, a design engineer in a major auto company, receives two reports concerning engine res and explosions that occurred in hot weather in the company's popular economy car. At the time the engine of this model had been approved and released for production, she had advised the plant that she felt the carburetor and gas lines were constructed so that under excessive heat conditions there could be a gas leak. At that time, she had argued for a modication that would have added about $50 to the cost of producing each engine, but her proposal had been turned down. She had continued to argue for the modication and for special testing, but the standard tests performed on the car did not indicate any danger, and she was told to drop the issue. Upon receiving the two reports, however, Susan again presses for special testing under excessive heat conditions and urges the company to warn the public and immediately recall all of the cars of this model. By this time, however, such a recall probably will cost the company between $500,000 and $1 million, and Susan again is told to mind her own business or she will be red. In the meantime, four more reports of engine res come in om a desert area in the southwest. The engineer is now convinced that she is right. What should she do? To what extent does she owe loyalty to the company, where she has worked for 15 years and has been promoted several times, and to what extent is she obligated to let the public know the truth? Because the company is removing the responsibility from Susan's shoulders, should she do something about what she knows, or should she just drop the problem? Considering that the company may lose up to $1 million, what are its ethical obligations? What do you think of the way it has handled the entire situation