Tasers. Not something that you’d like to come up against.
Questions about the safety of taser stun guns used by police forces across the globe have been raging ever since the supposedly non-lethal weapons first came into use over a decade ago.
Amnesty International, the company’s most vocal critic, has compiled figures indicating that at least 500 people in the USA have died since 2001 after being shocked with Tasers, and according to more conservative, but no less shocking, figures published by the US Justice Department, 184 people have died since 1986 after being stunned by a taser.
Taser International, the company that manufactures the 50,000 volt devices, has vehemently contested that the weapons are unsafe and has fought back in court when people say otherwise. Often the blame will fall back upon the victim’s drug abuse, weak heart or propensity to die suddenly from the debatable medical term known as ‘excited delirium’ – which Amnesty cites as a cause of death in 111 of 334 cases it has documented.
But there is a mounting tide of scientific proof that appears to question Taser’s claims. Since 2006 there have been a number of peer reviewed animal research studies demonstrating cardiac risk from the taser.
And earlier this month, Dr Douglas Zipes, one of the world’s most prominent cardiac electrophysiologists, published in the journal of the American Heart Association the first peer-reviewed human study demonstrating that darts in the chest can cause sudden death.
In an interview with ABC, Dr Zipes, of the Indiana University School of Medicine concluded: ‘It is absolutely unequivocal based on my understanding of how electricity works on the heart, based on good animal data and based on numerous clinical situations that the taser unquestionably can produce sudden cardiac arrest and death.’
Researchers analysed the records of eight people who went into cardiac arrest after being shocked with a taser, seven of whom died; concluding that the purportedly non-lethal weapon is anything but. They found that the electric shock through the body can cause irregular heartbeat and cardiac arrest, a condition in which the heart cannot properly contract.
Taser-related deaths
Leading US attorney John Burton who has represented the families of twenty taser-related death victims told the Bureau that, in light of the new research, the company needs to make its product safer and provide better training to those that use it.
‘Taser International released its products, the M26 and X26 electrical control devices without establishing their safety.
‘The Company needs to make the product safer and give its users better training and warnings. Agencies which persist in using this potentially lethal device need to make sure that officers understand the serious risks posed, and not continue to use tasers in trivial situations.
‘Following Dr Zipes’ report plaintiff’s lawyers now have powerful evidence to use in their cases. Unfortunately, Taser International remains in denial, and as a result there will no doubt be future victims.’
In the UK there have been three taser-related deaths since the stun-guns were first brought into widespread use in 2005. In one of the three, bodybuilder Dale Burns died after allegedly being shocked at least three times by officers from Cumbria Constabulary in August last year.
It is debatable whether the new research, which casts doubt over the safety of the taser, will filter across to these shores. A Channel Four investigation published in December, found that the frequency with which UK police officers are using their new kit is growing, highlighting that the number of taser discharges in the UK has risen collectively amongst forces by 70% from the previous year.
There have been a number of anecdotal reports of the weapons, which were first introduced as an alternative to fire-arms, being used in increasingly minor everyday policing incidents. Stun-guns were used to subdue protesters during the Dale Farm eviction process, and in February police wielded the weapons during a crown control situation on Oxford Street following the fatal stabbing of 18-year-old Seydou Diarrassouba. And just last week reports surfaced showing how 58-year-old Alzheimer’s sufferer Peter Russell was tasered three times by officers in his own home.
Multiple-tasering
Research by the Bureau also discovered that at least 158 people have been subjected to multiple-tasering – where repeated or prolonged electric shocks are used against an individual – since the weapons were rolled out across the UK, despite warnings about the dangers of the practice in the Home Office’s own taser safety guidance.
Consultant police psychologist and use of force expert Dr Mike Webster believes that the question marks surrounding the weapons thrown up by Dr Zipes’ research mean that international law enforcement agencies should put a moratorium on their use until the health and safety issues are properly and rigorously tested.
‘It’s no longer arguable that the wave form that the taser can produce does not cause cardiac electrical arrythmia and cardiac arrest,’ he said.
‘Previously it was all hypothesis and opinion by a number of very distinguished experts. What Dr Zipes has been able to do is prove this in an independent and rigorous study.’
He added: ‘We need to withdraw the weapons, get it independently tested and then decide what the health and safety effects are.
‘Dr Zipes has shown that police are putting a question mark around their belt whenever they put a taser in their holster.’
It remains to be seen what influence the study will have on public policy, and the seemingly exponential rise of the taser as a mainstay in the arsenal of everyday policing in both the USA and the UK. But one thing is for sure, Dr Zipes’ research has raised the most difficult questions to date for Taser International about the safety of its product.
Sign up for email alerts from the Bureau here.
May 15th, 2012 at 6:04 pm (#)
Of importance is that this was not a “human study” that would require an IRB approval. This was a “case series” whcih should report interesting associations and novel curiosities of medicine based on uncontrolled and anecdotal observations –it does not prove a cause-effect association. Dr Zipes’ article that published provides observational data from a series of eight cases provided to him in his disclosed role as a plaintiff’s expert during litigation of these cases. He does not conclude that these cases reveal a fundamental flaw in the design of the devices.
Also, the Zipes’ article is not a position paper by the American Heart Association.
I have sent this as the TASER statement in reply to this matter:
“The article is clearly self-serving as Dr. Zipes’ primary interest in this area is being a plaintiff’s expert witness who has been paid $1,200 per hour – more than $500,000 total to testify against police and TASER.”
“One example of Dr Zipes’ bias is his omission of important facts that contradict his agenda. For example in his case #4, video clearly showed that the officer missed the subject. Scanning electron microscopy of the probes also confirmed that no current was delivered through the wires to the subject. There are key facts that contradict the role of the TASER device in all of these cited cases, and Dr. Zipes has conveniently omitted all facts that contradict his opinion, but this case most clearly demonstrates his lack of objectivity and scientific rigor.”
“There have been 3 million uses of TASER device uses worldwide with this case series reporting 8 of concern. This article does not support a cause-effect association and fails to accurately evaluate the risks versus the benefits of the thousands of lives saved by police with TASER devices.”
“Clearly Dr. Zipes has a strong financial bias based on his career as an expert witness, which might help explain why he disagrees with the findings of independent medical examiners with no pecuniary interest in these cases as well as the U.S. Department of Justice’s independent study that concluded:
• “There is currently no medical evidence that CEDs pose a significant risk for induced cardiac dysrhythmia in humans when deployed reasonably.”
• “The risks of cardiac arrhythmias or death remain low and make CEDs more favorable than other weapons.”
Source: http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/less-lethal/incustody-deaths.htm
BACKGROUND:
The American Medical Association issued a White (Position) Paper on TASER safety in June 2009 that states:
• “Most studies undertaken by law enforcement agencies (and others) indicate that deploying CEDs relative to other use-of-force options, such as pepper spray, physical force, police dogs, and batons, reduces injuries to officers and suspects and reduces the use of lethal force.”
• “Furthermore, no evidence of dysrhythmia or myocardial ischemia is apparent, even when the barbs are positioned on the thorax and cardiac apex.”
Steve Tuttle
TASER Int’l VP of Commmunications
May 21st, 2012 at 5:30 pm (#)
Mr. Tuttle has questioned my integrity repeatedly in his responses to the press, to which I have responded, “If you cannot attack the science, attack the scientist.” If I were motivated by financial gain, why would I publish a paper that will educate users of TASERs, save lives, and REDUCE the number of cases requiring litigation and, hopefully, put me out of the TASER-testifying business? That doesn’t make a lot of business sense, even to a cardiologist.
Regarding the peer-reviewed research published in one of the world’s leading cardiology journals, it DID have Indiana University Institutional Review Board approval as stated in the article. From this case series, as well as previously published literature, it is my opinion that a TASER shock can cause a rapid heart rhythm called ventricular fibrillation leading to cardiac arrest. In the article, I indicate the probable mechanism. The accompanying editorial by Myerburg et al. (an internationally known expert in sudden death) agrees with my conclusions. My purpose is not to condemn TASER use – that is for law enforcement experts to decide – but to warn TASER users of this complication so they are prepared to recognize it and deal with it should it occur.
In my opinion, rather than fight court battles, TASER would be much better served using their money to educate TASER users about the points I make in the article.
Doug Zipes
May 25th, 2012 at 12:19 am (#)
I’m in agreement with Dr. Zipes on this topic. His research was reviewed by a panel of respected medical experts who conceded that TASERs can cause ventricular fibrillation. If Dr. Zipes were biased, I don’t believe the medical professionals on the panel would have supported his position. Ultimately, their reputations are on the line! However, I understand Mr. Tuttle who has an economic interest in protecting the image of his TASER product. However, Mr. Tuttle has previously admitted to awarding stock to the researchers he summoned to test his TASER product. Not a single reputable independent assocation has supported the findings of TASER International Inc. as being a safe weapon. If you believe your product is safe, find an independent agency to support your position like Dr. Zipes had done. Otherwise, you should stop procrastinating and get the word out that TASERs can kill.
May 25th, 2012 at 8:37 am (#)
“Safe weapon”????? Sounds like an oxymoron. Those that collaborated to invent, patent, produce and sell such weapons touting their own horns about any such “tool” being “safe” used comic books, not medical, scientific, socio-empirical, or theological research, as inspiration for themselves, can only be regarded as morons by everyone else – even some children are possessed of more common sense than that.
May 26th, 2012 at 9:14 pm (#)
Taser Int’ls “researchers” whilst doing whatever they wanted to caged hogs and/or themselves in Arizona, and any other volunteers intent on earning stock options elsewhere post 9-11, certainly were not “employing” any Medical Doctors whose primary concern was public health advancement generally. They did not ever approach the World Health Organization, or even the Red Cross, with due respect for the condition of darts or other component parts of Tasers to be “force thrust” to insert amperage into anyone’s muscles, nerves, veins, arteries, vital organs, bones as an integrated brain-body system. If their concern had been public health advancement, they would have included in their training manual, instructions for police, before pulling a trigger, to first ask permissions, and gain fully informed signed consent, to use any human parts residual after death, for “medical” research, or at least “medical doctor” education.
Coroners and USA college-trained “medical examiners” are not “medical doctors”. They do not act on behalf of victims of injury – nor even their family members. They act for “the crown” – hence the word “coroner”. They do not even subscribe to the same professional medical associations, and are thus free to utilize any “tools” and exercise as much unsubstantiated “opinion” as they wish in testifying and suggesting evidence. In no cases forensically investigated, have they been able to encourage those declared dead, to resume heart-beats, breathing, or talking, in an understandable manner.
I know of only one victim of such Taser “medical-mistreatment” under a supposed right unlawfully assumed by Police Act, publicly investigated, (not fully by any Health Authority) but by myself in care of the complainant to the British Columbia Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner. That office is not competent to analyze not proffer any “medical advice” – it does not even employ one medical doctor. Still it attempted to purport that Police Act to have been “unfortunately” mistaken, under the BC Mental Health Act, without a warrant, thus admitting the unlawfulness, also under the Canada Health Act. That however was not reported by that Office, nor the municipality where apparently no Provincial Court exists – as near murdered in 2005 though purportedly “fully investigated” in 2006. It occurred in almost the same manner as Robert Dziekanski was killed in 2007.
The victim did recover very slowly, but is left with burn scars somewhat similar to those burned onto some victims of the Nazi death camps. He suffers the same “medical diagnosis” as I still suffer also. Neither of us ever suffered “excited delerium” – we were always able to breathe enough to yell or sing or express ourselves – except when choking back tears in a court-room subsequently. The diagnosis, is as coined by our family doctor after he saw the Robert Dziekanski death repeatedly televised, “Post-Taser Attack PTSD”, which was diagnosable then also in himself as being “retriggered” due to having “medically” inspected a victims burns that could not possibly have been inflicted, in the locations where they were also thus infected on his body, by a Taser in a “touch capacity” unless the victim was practically “hog-tied” on the floor of his own home, with no “friendly” witnesses present. That diagnosis is recognized by the Canadian College of Physicians and Surgeons.
To the best of my knowledge, any American Psychiatrists who might ever want to include the “excited delerium” coined by mere medical examiners in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, would have to first disprove that similar entrapment circumstances, faced by themselves could not alone cause that condition, without any prior use of toxic substances, or medication. They also would have to “rule out” all other conditions such as deprivation of blood-glucose and oxygen for essential red blood cell-to brain function levels that could “appear” to outside viewers, like those symptoms described only by police, or other such profit-motivated, self-acting in their own best interests, Taser designers, producers, and users. They could not do so with any reason, nor possible justification, except to defend themselves, against a possible bullet wound, or judgement and sentencing for a term of imprisonment