Bird flu immunity -- for respirator manufacturers

Congress is helpless to immunize the American people against bird flu, but they were able to do the next best thing: immunize the vaccine makers against lawsuits. Now the respirator makers want to be next in line for the magic lawsuit vaccine.

Six companies that make respiratory masks want Congress to protect them from lawsuits, saying such a step would ensure that they could meet production demands in the event of a terrorist attack or flu pandemic.

The companies -- Aearo. Bacou-Dalloz, Inovel, Moldex, MSA and North Safety, which collectively have formed the Coalition for Breathing Safety -- wrote a letter last week to President Bush arguing that "unfettered liability costs will dramatically affect our nation's ability to respond to an avian flu pandemic."
The issue primarily affects N-95 respirators, disposable masks with filters that are used by first responders and healthcare workers. (Hill News)

The "Coalition for Breathing Safety" -- incorporated in 1984, no doubt -- asserts that 326,000 claims were filed against respirator manufacturers between 2002 and 2004 and litigation costs took up 90% of the revenue from mask sales. The lawsuits mostly relate to silicosis claims in which the mask companies were named as incidental defendants. To the extent the masks used by workers are not defective, the companies will have little liability in these cases and can use the same defense in each.Without the silicosis claims, there are only a few hundred lawsuits a year. The 90% of revenue assertion is 99% bullshit.

But bird flu is a godsend to these suffering mask companies. A few bucks to grease the campaign chests of a few CongressThings and they can become immune. Then it doesn't matter how good their masks are for bird flu (since no one knows) and they can continue to hawk them for that purpose anyway and not have to worry about any other use, either.

Here is the bipartisan group of Senators and Repsdoing the deed on behalf of these companies: Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Reps. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and Tim Holden (D-Pa.). Their only interest is in seeing we are all protected, right? Yes, two of the companies are in Pennsylvania, so Shuster and Holden are doing favors for home state businesses (but not home state workers). Cronyn and Nelson presumably don't believe anybody should be sued -- unless you are a teenager or a grandma accused of downloading a song.

So bird flu isn't all bad. If you are immune.

More like this

why aren't there masks with guarantee and masks without,
so the customer can choose what additional money he/she is willing to pay for the lawsuit-option ?
The statistics of cases should be free, so the customer can estimate the risk

Anon - thats a hoot!!! Why not extend the lawsuit option to everything we buy. And Revere - thanks so much - we needed something to laugh about. Making fun of John Cornyn YEAH - he deserves it for this and other sins.

yes,silly prescription laws

I honestly don't blame the companies involved...our current legal society is little more than a group of circling vultures, waiting for an opportunity. As long as our health industry (everything from breath masks to vaccines) is based on unsubsidized private industry, the incentive must be present.

Lawsuits are massive negative incentives, especially for something as uncertain and potentially devistating as pandemic influenza.

I recently refused to be involved with a pandemic planning group for a midsized company, as I was not comfortable in the legal uncertainties involved. Which means, somewhere, there are hundreds of employees who's employer, despite wanting to do so, will not have a plan in place for operating and paying during mass absenteeism.

It would be nice if you didn't need a massive lobby to get it done though.

Eric: I don't agree with you. Tort cases are only about 10% of what's in the courts and are an important modifier of corporate behavior. MPAA and RIAA, now, those are truly frivolous lawsuits as are many business and contract suits which is 90% of what is in civil court.

Well one thing we can see that this will do is force some of the manufacturing back from Indonesia and China. I dont know about that 10% number. My attorney represents a lot of those medical manufacturers and MSA quit making the mine types simply because of the torts according to him. He is also a state senator so its a big toss up on that. More likely the case is the amounts awarded. If you make a 2 dollar mask you have to sell one helluva lot of them to make up for a 200 million award.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 05 Jul 2006 #permalink

Revere: 10% is still a great many cases. And it is an important modifier of corporate behaviour - it encourages corporations (and individuals) not to do certain things.

In the case of influenza however, those certain things are steps towards being prepared for a potential pandemic. That's not the kind of behaviour we should be discouraging.

It is reasonable to expect the respirator manufacturers to want legal protection in this litigious society we live in. While some Christians fear a demon behind every bush, some companies fear a lawyer standing next to that demon.

Let's face it, some people are stupid and won't read directions, others are careless and will not follow directions, and still others are going to be naturally strained out of the gene pool because they are easily susceptible to catching flu viruses. Why should the mask makers be driven into bankruptcy after the fact just because some of the lawyers might live - and will descend like vultures on those in mourning who lost loved ones?

I will say one thing contrary to the mask manufacturers though... In researching protective masks for a bird flu book I was writing (part of which is posted on my blog), I found that the masks marked as 'small' rarely fit small faces but were quite large and will definitely not protect children or small people. I complained to some of the mask makers but they really didn't seem to care as their business is currently booming. I suggest for small faces, that you go for the 'pleated' masks as opposed to the form fitted ones. Test drive the mask on your loved one - before you need it to save their life.

iwrote1

www.iwrote1@blogspot.com