To extend upon this (though personally I feel a little differently than yourself, but inclusive of how you feel as well): My personal experience has seen indiv

To extend upon this (though personally I feel a little differently than yourself, but inclusive of how you feel as well): My personal experience has seen individual contributing software developers have little voice in the matter regardless. Outside of "tech"-forward companies they are of little consequence in the larger political structure of a company. I've seen it and been it—speak up about a desired direction, voice concerns about a decided direction, concerns about faulty legacy software, etc. Those voices, unless amplified by political clout mean little to nothing to anyone else. In a lot of organizations, title is everything when it comes to moving discussion. So my thinking, if we're continuing the comparison to the medical profession, is hierarchies must follow similarly. A head of Surgery in a hospital ward is going to be a doctor. Hospital directors are going to be doctors. Sure, the CEO may not be, but they rely on the expertise of their directors. If the directors don't follow the same code as the rest of the professionals under them, then they can theoretically impose any ethics they choose and the onus falls to the IC/surgeon/etc which for the intended purposes of the oath/license/regulation at all is tenuous.