In airports all across the United States, the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Safety Administration are busy installing full-body scanners to screen travelers for weapons and explosive devices not detectable by the metal detectors currently in use. These scanners raise all sorts of issues, including how effective they actually are at catching explosives and whether or not they are a violation of an individual’s right to privacy (they can reveal intimate details of the person being scanned, including an outline of their genitals and the presence of implants or adult diapers), but the most pressing concern is how much of a health risk they pose, both when functioning correctly and in the chance that they malfunction, to the traveler.
Some of the scanners operate with low-frequency electromagnetic waves, such as the ones used in microwaves, and as such pose a miniscule health threat. The other scanners, however, use high-frequency x-rays, such as the ones used by dentists and doctors, and the health risks that they might pose to a frequent traveler are as of yet unknown and potentially severe. The US government has conducted studies which suggest that the risks might be negligible, but besides the apparent conflict of interest of the government conducting studies to determine the safety of a product that it has already spent a large amount of money to buy, install, and operate, there is no way for us to know what effect they might have over a long period of time because the scanners have only been around for a few years.
As such, I believe that the implementation of these scanners needs to be carried out in the same way, and subject to the same oversight and restrictions, as a controlled medical trial is. There should be informed consent, only those who voluntarily decide that they are willing to undergo the risk of the scanners should be allowed to use them, and to facilitate this, another screening option should be made readily available. There is currently the choice of a physical pat-down if someone objects to going through the scanner, but many airports do not publicize this option at all (you have to know about it and specifically ask for it), and some TSA agents have even discouraged or prevented people from opting for a physical search. Instead, alternative options to the full-body scanners should be publicized and consistently offered at all airports, to ensure that millions of people are not unknowingly subjected to this risky trial in human experimentation.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/travel/12prac.html?ref=airport_security
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4972&blogid=140
3 comments:
I'm not sure the argument that full-body scanners are actually a violation of an individual's right to privacy based solely on the fact that they can reveal outlines of genitals or the presence of implants or adult diapers. If, however, they are a violation of privacy, is it not okay to violate that right in some cases? The first example that comes into people’s minds is the Patriot Act. Although that it s a bit of a controversial in and of itself, it brings up the question of whether or not we should sacrifice privacy for safety. What are we losing if full-body scanners reveal that someone wears adult diapers? That person may feel humiliated but generally nothing further. I believe that the simple risk of weapons getting past security is worth at the very least putting more research into full-body scanners. If, however, the technology proves to be harmful to the health of the people, then I agree that there should of course be constraints on the research.
In class the other day, we discussed how each bioethical issue needed its own case-by-case treatment (e.g. trolley cart problem). In this case, I'm not sure informed consent quite works. I know this is the foundation for bioethics and I definitely see where you're coming from, but I'd have to agreed with Nada on this one as long as health is not effected.
On the other hand, I wouldn't completely back up the Patriot Act. The main reason full-body scanners are permissible is that they are operating on a much smaller level. Though we do not know what government agency official is looking through our email transcripts, we know full and well there are only a few people on the other side of the monitor simply looking out for bombs and huge threats. In some ways, this issue, too, is debatable with Kantian vs. Utilitarian ethics in terms of the morality of even invading these people's privacy, or whether greatest good for the greatest number (in this case, the passengers) is better- and here, I would support utilitarianism.
For the same reason, utilitarianism wouldn't work if radiation was exposing each and every one of the passengers to health risks, in the same way a terrorist is. Given that Kant himself makes exceptions for lying by omission (as was mentioned in class), perhaps a utilitarian perspective is best to reconcile Nada's views and provide a more holistic view of the airport scanner situation.
(This post had to be republished from before.)
Post a Comment