Herup

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE Caleb

PAPER
ONE
July 8, 2015

Cell Phones and Cancer

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 links between cell phone use and cancer, several main
parties exist. First, the cell phone company is affected in several ways. Public opinion of the
safety of cell phones affects the companys business. Law suits filed can be very significant costs
as well. Secondly, the cell phone user is affected, mainly due to the potential risk of health issues.
Also, 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 link was established between cell phones and cancer if the company did nothing. The

company stands to gain little else than an ethical safety with the recall option, but can stand to
make sizeable profits if current production is maintained and the cancer research prove to be a
hoax. Via a straight cost-benefit analysis, the company would be reasonable in continuing
production normally at this time.
By 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 make is to
determine to what extent the cell phone company is responsible for the safety of its customers.
One may draw the line at awareness. The cell company would be responsible for affixing some
sort of warning to the product or its packaging to alert the user of the potential danger. Another
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 risk or not. The risk of cancer seems to be very low as Fledderman
states that almost all scientific studies at this point are inconclusive, or return negative results
about the connection between cell phones and cancer. [1] However, the individual must weigh
the convenience of a cell phone against its potential hazards.
By a duty-rights analysis, the situation is open to interpretation. [1] The user does have a
right to not be needlessly endangered by a product. Other individuals also have the right not to be
endangered by the use of another persons 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 individuals duties are minimal, and that it is the companys responsibility to provide a

safe product. Other views promote the idea that the user is responsible for his/her 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 objectively 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 making.
Right 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.
One viable solution is to put some sort of warning label on the cell phone packaging,
alerting the consumer of the risk 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 his/her 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 (rf) shield that directed the majority of the radiation
away from the user, the risk 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.

A 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. However, there is no guarantee that
other radio frequencies would make a significant difference.
Overall, current research is probably not far enough along to provide any sort of link
between cell phones and cancer. Because of this, it is difficult to pin an ethical responsibility to
action on the cell phone company. As research develops, it will become clearer what the right
ethical path is.

References
[1] Fleddermann, C.B, 2012 Engineering Ethics, 4th Ed, Pearson Education, chap 3-4