The federal compensation program for the victims of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is a remarkable example of thoughtful government analysis and action. An important question is whether it should be a model for future disasters.

A group of Maine lawyers, judges and law students recently got a firsthand report from Kenneth R. Feinberg, the Washington lawyer who administered the fund. He spoke at the University of Maine Law School.

Mr. Feinberg told how he distributed $7 billion to 7,300 claimants, starting with a federal law enacted eleven days after the terrorist attacks and going through the often agonizing decisions on who should qualify and how much each should get. The tax-free payments averaged $2 million, but they varied greatly, taking into account estimated future earnings and special needs. They ranged from a $250,000 minimum to a top limit, only rarely exceeded, of $3 million.

Anyone entering the program had to give up the right to sue the airlines or other entities like the World Trade Center. Ninety-seven percent of the claimants took that path. Fewer than 90 suits were filed.

Mr. Feinberg conducted public meetings to explain the program as well as more than 500 personal interviews sometimes to deal with irate demands and complaints. What about victims of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center? Not covered by the statute. Why should a multimillionaire securities trader receive little more than a waitress or busboy in the Windows on the World restaurant? He narrowed the gap between rich and poor. He ruled out trying to evaluate pain and suffering, and he refused to make distinctions on degrees of heroism.

Should the 9/11 Fund be taken as a model for the next terrorist attack when and if it comes? In his 2006 book, “What Is Life Worth? The Unprecedented Effort to Compensate the Victims of 9/11,” Mr. Feinberg says, “Despite its success, I would not use the fund as a model in the event of future attacks.”

His first reason is the troubling issue of why the Sept. 11 victims received different treatment compared with victims of other terrorist attacks. And why not compensation for victims of floods, earthquakes and hit-and-run accidents? Mr. Feinberg argues that this would violate the deeply ingrained notion that “in a free society people make choices and live – and die – by them.”

Secondly, he wrote that government compensation for every death or injury “runs counter to the American tradition of self-reliance.”

Further, what about the principle of individual responsibility? “Why be careful if the government stands ready to compensate the victim whenever unforeseen tragedy occurs?”

Unlimited government compensation for every misfortune is out of the question, but in another terrorist attack, demands for a compensation program will be hard to oppose.