Mobile phones were first banned in hospitals in the early 1990s because of fears that they interfered with medical equipment, and restrictions are still widespread in NHS trusts across the country.

But they are no more unsafe than televisions, radios and other electronic devices, according to Stuart Derbyshire, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Birmingham, and Adam Burgess, from the University of Kent.

They say that the advantages of allowing patients to keep in touch with loved ones, and doctors to be contacted more easily, far outweigh the supposed risks.

A study by the Medical Devices Agency found that mobile phones could possibly interfere with only 4 per cent of commonly used medical devices at a distance of one metre. By contrast, the walkie-talkie-style handsets carried by ambulance crews and hospital porters interfered with 41 per cent and 35 per cent respectively.

“Beeping, ringing and singing ringtones may also be a nuisance,” the authors write. “This, however, does not endanger patients. In general the interference was merely an irritation and ultimately harmless. Concerns about patient safety do not justify zealously enforced no-phone areas.”

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has proposed a welcome relaxation of restrictions, the authors write. However, fresh anxieties are leading to regulations that seek further to restrict people’s freedom to talk or text.

The Department of Health recommended in August that camera or video phones should not be allowed in hospitals because they may undermine the privacy of patients.

It has also suggested that some ringtones might be mistaken for medical device alarms, and that there was a danger that essential equipment might be unplugged accidentally so that phones could be charged.

But mobile phones also have many benefits, the authors say. A recent survey of American anaesthetists found that only 2.4 per cent had experienced interference between a medical device and a mobile phone. In contrast, 15 per cent indicated that a delay in communication had led to a medical error, and such delays were less frequent among those who used mobile phones instead of pagers.

“Mobile phones are an easy target in a precautionary climate that demands proof that something is not dangerous rather than grounds that it is,” Professor Burgess, a senior lecturer in sociology, said yesterday.

“It is ridiculous that in life-or-death situations doctors are still having to rely on pagers while many patients would welcome the opportunity to talk to their friends and family without resorting to expensive hospital phones.”

Patientline, the company that supplies bedside phones to 90 per cent of hospitals, has been investigated by Ofcom, the communications regulator, after charging patients up to 49p a minute to receive peak-time calls at their bedside.

Times Recommends

• Catalogue of failings ‘leaves others at risk’
• Tourists told to stay away amid Venice floods
• Google generation has no need for rote learning