Dispute Over Defibrillators

Re “Putting a Heart Saver in Hands of Novices,” July 16:

Once again that group of righteous souls known for their integrity and altruism, California’s trial lawyers, have used their political muscle to “save” the public from those who would seek to do it harm, in this case the American Heart Assn. and others who favor limiting liability for novices who use a portable defibrillator to render aid to heart attack victims.

Although I do not advocate the use of public funds to purchase defibrillators, novices who use them in an attempt to save lives should not be forced to do so outside the protection of California’s existing good Samaritan law.

Unfortunately, however, it appears that the trial lawyers and their Democratic stooges feel that offering such protection without the ability to profit is bad public policy. LOU ALKANA

Culver City

*

I was dismayed to learn that the defibrillators that were responsible for saving the lives of two Palm Springs residents at a total cost of $100,000 were not considered to be cost-effective. This lifesaving intervention is far more cost-effective than most public health and medical interventions that we currently invest in. For example, it is more cost-effective than mammograms, more cost-effective than air bags and more cost-effective than the vast majority of government regulations to control environmental carcinogens. In making this claim, I refer to a 1995 paper that my colleagues and I at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis published in the academic journal Risk Analysis. We found that the average lifesaving intervention cost $42,000 per year of life saved. If each of these two elderly people in Palm Springs lived just five additional years after being rescued from cardiac arrest, then the cost-effectiveness of defibrillators would be $10,000 for each year of life saved. This represents a highly cost-effective public health investment.

TAMMY O. TENGS ScD

Assistant Professor

Health Policy and Planning

UC Irvine