Cell Phones and Cancer

7/24/2019 Cell Phones and Cancer

1/6

Caleb HerupJuly 8, 2015INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE PAPER

ONE

Cell Ph!e" a!# Ca!$er


2/6

In light of recent lawsuits and general public hype over the possible connection between

excessive use of cellular devices and brain or other types of cancers, it becomes necessary to

discuss the possible ethical ramifications of managerial decisions made about this issue. Such

decisions require the careful weighing of affected parties, their reasonable rights and

expectations, and their responsibilities. It should be noted that rights and responsibilities in this

sense are not necessarily legal in nature. They are evaluated based on ethical principles and a

sense of right and wrong. In order to come to an ethically acceptable decision that also meets

practicality standards, all affected areas must be carefully analyzed and weighed to determine the

best solution to the current dilemma. In order to do this effectively, both factual and conceptual

issues, as well as social constraints will also be considered. The moral theories of cost-benefit

analysis and duty and rights ethics will be reflected in the analysis. In the end, several ethically

and economically viable solutions will be presented, with pros and cons included for

deliberation.

In an investigation of possible lins between cell phone use and cancer, several main

parties exist. !irst, the cell phone company is affected in several ways. "ublic opinion of the

safety of cell phones affects the company#s business. $aw suits filed can be very significant costs

as well. Secondly, the cell phone user is affected, mainly due to the potential ris of health issues.

%lso, it must be noted that research teams are closely affiliated with health investigations.

Identifying the parties involved in this situation is critical to addressing the rights and

responsibilities that each one has pertaining to the investigation itself.

In a cost-benefit analysis, the cell phone company is greatly affected either way. The cost

of cell phone recalls until cancer research is complete is astronomical, but so is the disaster faced

if a solid lin was established between cell phones and cancer if the company did nothing. The


3/6

company stands to gain little else than an ethical safety with the recall option, but can stand to

mae sizeable profits if current production is maintained and the cancer research prove to be a

hoax. &ia a straight cost-benefit analysis, the company would be reasonable in continuing

production normally at this time.

'y a rights duty analysis, the cell company is a little more liable. The cell company has a

right to produce as many cell phones as they please, but also arguably have a duty to the average

citizen to protect them from the potential danger of their product. The difficult call to mae is to

determine to what extent the cell phone company is responsible for the safety of its customers.

(ne may draw the line at awareness. The cell company would be responsible for affixing some

sort of warning to the product or its pacaging to alert the user of the potential danger. %nother

possibility is that the cell company is in fact responsible to its customers for their safety in a

much more involved way, and has no business selling the product at all in the first place.

In a cost-benefit analysis, the cell phone user must decide personally whether using a

cellular device is a reasonable ris or not. The ris of cancer seems to be very low as !ledderman

states that almost all scientific studies at this point are inconclusive, or return negative results

about the connection between cell phones and cancer. )*+ owever, the individual must weigh

the convenience of a cell phone against its potential hazards.

'y a duty-rights analysis, the situation is open to interpretation. )*+ The user does have a

right to not be needlessly endangered by a product. (ther individuals also have the right not to be

endangered by the use of another person#s product. The individual may also have some important

duties to remember, such as the duty not to endanger another individual. It can be maintained

that the individual#s duties are minimal, and that it is the company#s responsibility to provide a


4/6

safe product. (ther views promote the idea that the user is responsible for hisher own safety, and

therefore has the duty to be familiar with the potential hazards of using the product.

The research team is something of a special case. Suffice it to say that research teams

have the right to publish their findings obectively and form an opinion on the data. They also

have the duty to present the facts as unbiasedly as possible, and to formulate a reliable opinion to

help guide the general public in their decision maing.

/ight or not, social standards put companies at a much higher liability and responsibility

than the customer. It is generally held that the company is required to create a product that cannot

harm the user unless extreme stupidity is exercised. This constrains the company even further,

and requires them to go the extra mile in providing a safe product to their customers. The public

attitude must also be considered when evaluating possible solutions.

(ne viable solution is to put some sort of warning label on the cell phone pacaging,

alerting the consumer of the ris of cancer when using the device. This would allow the user to

do a personal cost-benefit analysis to decide whether or not it is within hisher best interest to use

the product. The downside is the inescapable fact that many warning labels are either unread, or

unheeded. This also does little to solve the problem, if it exists.

If the company were to develop an 0rf1 shield that directed the maority of the radiation

away from the user, the ris of cancer would theoretically be decreased greatly, since exposure is

even more limited. This solution is less viable simply because it poses many technical problems

including increased cost, possible decrease of reception and transmission capability, and

increased weight.


5/6

% slightly more viable alternative would be to research the least potentially harmful

frequencies that could be used to communicate on. The potential harm would be decreased, and

the capital cost would be much less than other alternatives. owever, there is no guarantee that

other radio frequencies would mae a significant difference.

(verall, current research is probably not far enough along to provide any sort of lin

between cell phones and cancer. 'ecause of this, it is difficult to pin an ethical responsibility to

action on the cell phone company. %s research develops, it will become clearer what the right

ethical path is.


6/6

References

)*+ !leddermann, 2.', 34*3 56ngineering 6thics, 7th6d8, "earson 6ducation, chap 9-7

Documents

Cell Phones and Cancer