A good bill gone astray.

It comes as no surprise. The American people have come to expect that into almost every bill, a little pork must fall. In July, a congressional subcommittee cut $500 million from a Senate bill that would have funded a shipbuilding project in Pascagoula, Mississippi, the hometown of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. By the end of September, Lott got his way--the Senate approved another Pascagoula project, allotting $375 million to build an amphibious assault ship that the Navy hadn't even requested.

Funneling special projects to the folks back home is a time-honored tradition that takes place on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of Capitol Hill. Flexing political muscle, however, doesn't always result in pork. Sometimes--as in the case of the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 1999 (S. 1488, H.R. 2498)--the result is more subtle. Call it "the other white meat": political agenda.

Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) introduced the act in August. The bill is good policy, up to a point. Keep in mind that Gorton has enthusiastically taken the lead in sponsoring various products liability and general tort "reform" bills for more than a decade.

Defibrillator placement

The bill would direct the secretary of health and human services to make recommendations regarding the placement of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) in federal buildings around the country and to help implement programs for placement.

The call for more defibrillators is a good thing. However, the good intentions of this bill go awry in an unnecessarily broad section entitled, "Immunity from civil liabilities for emergency use of automatic external defibrillators."

AEDs are used when a person goes into sudden cardiac arrest, often from a disorder called ventricular fibrillation, which causes chaotic heart rhythms. A defibrillator sends an electrical jolt to the heart to restore its regular beat.

Groups like the American Heart Association advocate greater accessibility to AEDs in places where large groups of people tend to gather, such as sports stadiums, airports and commercial airplanes, health clubs, shopping malls, and casinos.

Nearly 1,000 people die every day from sudden cardiac arrest, and studies have shown that when defibrillation is used within the first few minutes of arrest, the survival rate from the attack is as high as 90 percent.

If AEDs are placed in federal buildings and people do not use them, they are, in effect, rendered useless. To help ensure use of the equipment, the bill provides immunity from civil liability for any personal injury or wrongful death for people who give "emergency medical care through the use of an automated external defibrillator."

Encouraging the Good Samaritan spirit is one thing. However, the liability relief proposed in S.1488 goes far beyond protecting the well-intentional passerby who stops to perform lifesaving emergency assistance.

Excessive immunity

The bill would also protect any person who maintained or tested the AED, any physician who provided medical oversight regarding the device, and even the person who acquired it. Clearly this bill would provide immunity well outside the scope of an emergency.

The immunity would not apply if a person--regardless of his or her role--engages in gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct with respect to AEDs.

Lawmakers may not yet see the difference between the proposed act and existing law regarding the placement of AEDs on aircraft regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Aviation Medical Assistance Act (49 U.S.C. [sections] 44701) directed the FAA to evaluate the medical kits that are carried on aircraft and to decide whether defibrillators should be also be aboard aircraft.

While both acts deal with the provision of the devices in public places, the liability section of the aviation act is much narrower in scape. It grants protection only for the individual providing the emergency care. If that person is an employee of the air carrier, the carrier itself is not afforded protection. The carrier is relieved from liability for its performance in obtaining or attempting to obtain passenger assistance, but it can still be held liable for the acts of the assisting individual in certain circumstances.

Later this month, the FAA is expected to determine whether defibrillators should be placed in airports or on passenger aircraft operated by air carriers. However, some airports have decided to act before the FAA issues its directive.

Since August 20, AEDs placed in Chicago airports have saved at least four victims of sudden cardiac arrest. San Francisco International Airport was expected to have its defibrillators in place by the end of October.

Installing these devices in public places is a commendable idea that could help save some of the thousands of people who die each year from sudden cardiac arrest.

Unfortunately, Gorton couldn't resist the urge to insert an aspect of tort "reform" into the bill and expand liability protection into areas where it is not necessary. This expansion may divert attention from what should be the primary purpose of the bill--saving lives.

Kristin Loiacono is media relations coordinator for ATLA.