|
|
|||||||||||
Senior Lecturer, School of Nursing, University of Auckland, and Nurse Specialist, Auckland Healthcare Services, New Zealand, email: a.obrien{at}auckland.ac.nz
Director, Centre for Mental Health Research and Associate Professor, School of Nursing, University of Auckland
HonoraryAssociate Professor, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland, and Clinical Director, Auckland Regional Forensic Psychiatry Services, New Zealand
|
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The currently used model of Tasers, the X26, is a battery-operated unit resembling a hand gun that fires two barbed electrodes on copper wires of up to 35 feet, at 180ft/s (Taser International, 2005). The barbs embed themselves in the victims skin or clothes and deliver up to 50 000 volts of electricity with 1.76 J of energy in rapid pulses over a period of 5 s, causing uncontrollable muscle contraction and overwhelming pain (Taser International, 2005). Repeated charges of electricity can be administered. Tasers are used for law enforcement in the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK, and were recently introduced for a 12-month trial in New Zealand. Despite reports of concerns about their potential health implications (Bleetman et al, 2004; Rappert, 2004a; Bozeman & Winslow, 2005) there is little published scientific research into their effects on physical or mental health. The small body of research into Taser safety suggests that the devices are safe in healthy individuals with no predisposing risks, but is cautious about their use in some atrisk groups. Because mental health consumers may fall into one or more risk categories, any use of Tasers with that group requires a high level of vigilance.
|
|
Method |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Deaths following Taser use
Amnesty International report that between 2001 and February 2006 Tasers
were associated with 152 deaths in the USA and Canada
(Amnesty International, 2006).
A 2005 briefing paper from the US National Institute of Justice puts the
figure at 184 (US Department of Justice, personal communication). Numbers of
deaths have increased with the increasing availability of Tasers to police.
Although the available evidence does not allow for a causal link to be
established, there is sufficient concern about the possible contribution of
Tasers to deaths for the manufacturers product warnings to advise
caution in groups considered vulnerable
(Taser International, 2006).
These groups include people with a known history of cardiac arrhythmia, those
who are intoxicated on alcohol or stimulant drugs, those who are highly
agitated (sometimes referred to as excited delirium), those with
mental illness and pregnant women (Bleetman
et al, 2004; Rappert,
2004a; Bozeman &
Winslow, 2005; Taser
International, 2006;
International Association of Chiefs of
Police, 2007). Several reports suggest that agitation, drug use,
predisposing cardiac problems or restraint technique may explain deaths
following Taser use (Erwin & Philibert,
2006; McBride & Tedder,
2006; International Association
of Chiefs of Police, 2007; US Department of Justice, personal
communication).
In New Zealand, concerns about Taser deployment are compounded by the police identifying people in mental health emergencies as one of the groups who may be subject to Taser response (New Zealand Police, 2006). Among the 184 deaths discussed in the National Institute of Justice briefing paper, 19% were of people with mental illness (US Department of Justice, personal communication). In the USA, police use of Tasers has extended to in-patient mental health services (Erwin & Philibert, 2006). In the small amount of literature available there are no reports on the effects of Taser use on mental health, or on the effects of the device on people with mental illness.
A common theme throughout much of the law enforcement and medical literature is that deaths following Taser use involve multiple factors. All incidents involve individuals who show some degree of agitation (an indication for Taser use). Taser operational protocols often include warnings in cases where persons have been unable or unwilling to respond due to use of central nervous stimulants such as cocaine, phencyclidine and methamphetamine (Amnesty International, 2006; McBride & Tedder, 2006; US Department of Justice, personal communication). Most victims have received multiple, and in some cases, prolonged Taser shocks and have been subject to multiple means of restraint (US Department of Justice, personal communication; Amnesty International, 2006). Use of methods of restraint that impair breathing is another common feature. Although these factors are not all present in every case, they appear to represent a cluster of risk factors, different combinations of which are associated with death following the use of Tasers.
Mental health issues
There are no reports specifically addressing the mental health effects of
Tasers. This includes the effects of using the Taser on people with a mental
illness and those without. It is noted, however, that 19% of deaths discussed
in the briefing paper from the National Institute of Justice were of people
with mental illness. People in states of acute agitation related to mental
illness may experience the high levels of arousal associated with unexplained
death in custody (Robison & Hunt,
2005). In addition, people taking prescribed antipsychotic
medications are already at increased risk of sudden cardiac death
(Straus et al, 2004).
In addition to any traumatising effect of Tasers, their use in mental health
emergencies is likely to have a deleterious effect on subsequent engagement
with mental healthcare owing to an increased perception of coercion
(McKenna et al,
1999).
National Institute of Justice study
The US National Institute of Justice has begun a 2-year study into deaths
proximal to Taser use (US Department of Justice, personal communication). The
study will compare three groups of ten: those who have undergone Taser shocks
and where a medical examiner has ruled the Taser was either causative or
contributory; those who have undergone Taser shocks and where a medical
examiner has ruled the Taser was not a factor in the death; and those whose
deaths in custody share features of Taser-related deaths but did not involve
Tasers. Although the numbers are small, this study is likely to make a
significant contribution to understanding the factors contributing to deaths
following Taser use.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We were surprised by the lack of literature on the implications of Taser use on individuals with mental illness, and the lack of attention to the mental health implications of Taser use on all populations. As Jenkinson et al (2006) assert, any use of force has the potential to cause injury. We would add that force is also a source of trauma for both police and for the victim. Tasers may be legal and even necessary from a law enforcement perspective, but as McBride & Tedder (2006) noted, health researchers need to investigate their mental health consequences.
Making an informed decision about whether Tasers are appropriate for police use is a public policy decision (Rappert, 2004a), one factor in which is the health implications of their use. Also relevant are wider issues such as prevention of injury or harm to others and the image of the police. For instance, these issues may well be different if the proposed use is limited to an alternative to lethal force. This cost-benefit argument is different from that involved in issuing Tasers to previously unarmed police officers, where the Taser becomes an alternative to, for example, pepper spray, as recommended by Jenkinson et al (2006), or is simply used as a means of gaining compliance or deploying fewer police officers. Furthermore, as health professionals are required at times to provide care following the use of Tasers, it is imperative that clinical and ethical guidelines for health professionals are promulgated. This is particularly so when the police are involved in the processes of detaining a person with mental illness under civil commitment statutes. Use of Tasers is a public policy issue that demands the vigilance of health professionals and researchers (Rappert, 2004b).
|
|
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
BLEETMAN, A., STEYN, R. & LEE, C. (2004)
Introduction of the Taser into British policing. Implications for UK emergency
departments: an overview of electronic weaponry. Emergency Medicine
Journal, 21, 136
–140.
BOZEMAN, W. P. & WINSLOW, J. E. (2005) Medical aspects of less lethal weapons. Internet Journal of Rescue and Disaster Medicine, 5. www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijrdm/vol5n1/lethal.xml
CHEN, S. L., RICHARD, C. K., MURTHY, R. C., et al (2006) Perforating ocular injury by Taser. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 34, 378 –380.[CrossRef][Medline]
DOBROWALSKI, A. & MOORE, S. (2005) Less lethal weapons and their impact on patient care. Topics in Emergency Medicine, 27, 44 –49.
ERWIN, C. & PHILIBERT, R. (2006) Shocking
treatment: the use of Tasers in psychiatric care. Journal of Law,
Medicine and Ethics, 34, 116
–120.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE (2007) Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology. A Nine-Step Strategy for Effective Deployment. http://www.theiacp.org/research/CuttingEdge/EMDT9Steps.pdf
JENKINSON, E., NEESON, C. & BLEETMAN, A. (2006) The relative risk of police use-of-force options: evaluating the potential for deployment of electronic weaponry. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, 13, 229 –241.[CrossRef][Medline]
McBRIDE, D. K. & TEDDER, N. B. (2006) Efficacy and Safety of Electrical Stun Devices. http://www.potomacinstitute.org/research/stunintro.htm
McKENNA, B., SIMPSON, A. & LAIDLAW, T. (1999) Patient perception of coercion on admission to acute psychiatric services. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 143 –153.[CrossRef][Medline]
NEW ZEALAND POLICE (2006) The New Zealand Police Online Magazine. 284. http://www.police.govt.nz/news/tenone/20060428-284/
NG, W. & CHEHADE, M. (2005) Taser penetrating ocular injury. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 139, 713 –715.[CrossRef][Medline]
RAPPERT, B. (2004a) A framework for the assessment of non-lethal weapons. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 20, 35 –54.[CrossRef]
RAPPERT, B. (2004b) Moralizing violence: debating the acceptability of electrical weapons. Society as Culture, 13, 3 –35.[CrossRef]
ROBISON, D. & HUNT, S. (2005) Sudden in-custody death syndrome. Topics in Emergency Medicine, 27, 36 –43.
STRAUS, S. B. J. M., BLEUMINK, G. S., DIELEMAN, J. P., et
al (2004) Antipsychotics and the risk of sudden cardiac
death. Archives of Internal Medicine,
164, 1293
–1297.
TASER INTERNATIONAL (2005) Saving Lives Every Day. Taser International 2005 Annual Report. 2005. http://www.taser.com
TASER INTERNATIONAL (2006) Products Warning – Law Enforcement. http://www.taser.com/safety/index.htm
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| British Journal of Psychiatry | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |