THE ARCHITECT IS LIKE THE SURGEON IN THE OPERATING THEATRE: HE CANNOT EXCUSE HIMSELF BY SAYING THAT THE PATIENT TOLD HIM BEFOREHAND WHAT HE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO
In the course of professional practice, an architect can be expected, if after informing the owner of the work and precautions needed for the project he does not obtain consent to carry them out, to REFUSE to continue with the works. He must withdraw from the project and notify his professional association of that withdrawal.
What he CANNOT do is carry on directing the works while leaving out that necessary work or those precautions, claiming that he does so at the risk of the owner, who has preferred to leave them out to save costs. Nor even by having the owner or developer sign a document stating that they “release him from liability for not doing it”.
That would be like claiming that a surgeon is released from liability when, at the patient’s request, he does not give anaesthetic in a complex operation, or does not provide blood or plasma, or performs it in the patient’s room instead of an operating theatre, in order to reduce the cost of the surgical treatment. Even if the patient releases him from liability, or tells him that otherwise they will not agree to the operation, or threatens him in one way or another.
It is the expert or professional who must decide which work is essential for the success and safety of the project, and which other work may depend on how much the owner is willing to spend.
When an architect agrees not to carry out a geotechnical survey of the ground, for example, or agrees to something essential not being done on the project, he cannot excuse himself on the grounds that he gave in to the wishes of the owner or developer instead of imposing his best professional judgement.
www.dpcon.es
Any questions?