I agree wholeheartedly. I would even prefer it if all fsck tools defaulted to read-only (or "check" only) with no command-line options, and required an explicit command-line option before making changes to the data on disk.
The argument against releasing the fsck tool seems to be that the tool they have may take the file-system that has detectable errors and add more detectable errors. I thought that went without saying. To go further, I don't see how you can produce a fsck tool that writes to disk and can promise otherwise.
fsck is for regular use, after N many mounts, after M many days, just to make sure that most of the pieces are there and they have generally the right color. Repairing filesystems is its hobby, not its job.