We're already risking that. The regulatory limits aren’t a 100% guarantee of safety, they’re just an effort to make a good tradeoff between safety and utility.
There’s no guarantee that all pacemakers will accept interference that falls below the regulatory limit, nor is there a guarantee that every certified device actually complies with the limit. Manufacturing defects or gaps in testing mean you can never be totally sure. If your standard is to not risk even one pacemaker failing due to outside interference, you would need to eliminate all other electronics. (And you’d still have the unlikely but non-zero risk that one pacemaker would emit interference that causes another one to fail.)
Well, yeah --- just like I'd risk one person getting hit by a train in order to achieve the "technological progress" of rail transport. Every new technology comes with risks. If we focus on the risks and ignore the benefits, we can't make progress, and it's progress that ultimately benefits more people than any amount of harm avoidance.
