Indiana University cardiologist reports stun guns can result in sudden cardiac arrest and death

[WAS967 97]

http://www.healthcanal.com/blood-heart-circulation/28951-Indiana-University-cardiologist-reports-stun-guns-can-result-sudden-cardiac-arrest-and-death.html

Anyone know from the case law.....how many times has a gun manufacturer been successfully sued by someone (or their kin in cases of fatalities) who was shot?

I love how they mention that this guy was an expert witness AGAINST Tazer. Perhaps he's trying to drum up more business?

[antiquefirelt 994]

Anyone know from the case law.....how many times has a gun manufacturer been successfully sued by someone (or their kin in cases of fatalities) who was shot?

If it was even once, it's once too many. Guns are inanimate objects and therefore require human interaction. The case may be different with Taser's though, as they are marketed as "non- or less than lethal force", thus if someone "proves" a death was the result of the Taser this would differ from the firearms which are known lethal force devices.

[hookandcanman83 11]

Heres a thought... dont put yourself in a situation where a police officer would draw a taser or firearm on you. Then you wont have to worry about being killed. Just my 2 cents.

[helicopper 1,050]

If it was even once, it's once too many. Guns are inanimate objects and therefore require human interaction. The case may be different with Taser's though, as they are marketed as "non- or less than lethal force", thus if someone "proves" a death was the result of the Taser this would differ from the firearms which are known lethal force devices.

As I understand it, they're marketed as Less-Lethal and are never referred to as non-lethal. The comparison is to a firearm so Taser's are less-lethal than being shot with a handgun and that's hard to dispute.

I don't think anyone says Taser's are without potential complications but I firmly believe it give cops on the ground one more option before resorting to a firearm. When I started, I was given a baton and a firearm. Not a whole lot of options. Today, cops have OC (in many forms - spray, foam, projectiles, etc.), baton, Taser, bean-bag rounds, and finally the firearm. That's a whole lot better than it was 20 years ago.

But, as hookman said, don't fight with the police and you won't get Tazed or shot!

[antiquefirelt 994]

As I understand it, they're marketed as Less-Lethal and are never referred to as non-lethal. The comparison is to a firearm so Taser's are less-lethal than being shot with a handgun and that's hard to dispute.

I don't think anyone says Taser's are without potential complications but I firmly believe it give cops on the ground one more option before resorting to a firearm. When I started, I was given a baton and a firearm. Not a whole lot of options. Today, cops have OC (in many forms - spray, foam, projectiles, etc.), baton, Taser, bean-bag rounds, and finally the firearm. That's a whole lot better than it was 20 years ago.

But, as hookman said, don't fight with the police and you won't get Tazed or shot!

I agree 100% that Tasers excellent tools and think they should be on every duty belt. My point being that when they're employed in a less than lethal situation, it's hard to hold the officer responsible for the perps death when he/she did not intend to use deadly force. While, as Hookandcanman notes, the perp is really responsible for the actions causing the Taser employment, it's unlikely that he/she'd be automatically considered suicidal, thus not responsible for his/her own death, leaving the device that unintentionally "caused" the death at fault. Of course this is countered by the argument that it's very possible the same suspect would have died in a physical struggle in the absence of a Taser given potential excited delirium causes?

[WAS967 97]

Next part of the debate has been mentioned before. Should Tazer patients be sent to the hospital for evaluation, and if so, should they go ALS?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Next part of the debate has been mentioned before. Should Tazer patients be sent to the hospital for evaluation, and if so, should they go ALS?

Is it not the policy of most law enforcment to have someone who is detained and has an "injury" to be medically evaluated? Does not matter what caused the injury.

If a police officer or innocent bystander was accidently hit, would they go ALS? Would that not set the standard?

[antiquefirelt 994]

Our PD's policy is not to call EMS unless there is another suspected injury, the Taser deployment alone does not constitute and injury requiring EMS. I'd think that if it was policy to send all "tased" suspects via ALS, it would be setting an example that their use has more potential for injury than they're marketed as. The only issue we come to now, in our case, is the new EDP protocols of which our dept. is a pilot program member, given the criteria used, nearly anyone the PD "tases" would fit the EDP criteria requiring ALS transport. If PD starts calling us for all of these incidents our Thurs-Sun nights will get a lot busier!

To answer BNECHIS's question: We would not consider a innocent bystander being struck by the Taser any different, in that unless there was any other specific complaints, it wouldn't be an Emergency Transport (our 3 buses run with ALS, all the time). In fact the LEO's are instructed to remove Taser barbs unless their in the eyes or genitals.

[JJB531 652]

If you read the medical studies, the majority of tased individuals don't require any medical follow-up unless there are certain compounding circumstances (injury sustained from a fall, individuals who are suspected of being under the influence of narcotics). A routine part of Taser training results in students going for "the ride". How many students are routinely transported for medical evaluation?

If you are the fortunate subject of a taser deployment, are you really injured? Hurts like hell for the 5 seconds the taser is cycling, but once the device cycles, the overwhelming majority of subjects are fine, with no adverse effects.

[helicopper 1,050]

Next part of the debate has been mentioned before. Should Tazer patients be sent to the hospital for evaluation, and if so, should they go ALS?

Treat the patient. Is there a complaint? Are their any physical findings during the exam that warrant treatment or transportation?

This is like saying everyone in an accident should go to the hospital. We all know that the vast majority don't go to the hospital and of those that do, only a small percentage go ALS.

Don't treat the mechanism. Treat the patient.

[WAS967 97]

My problem is it doesn't come down to treating the patient. In a lot of places it comes down to treating the way you think your QA/QI guy would require it so that they don't make a stink and try to jam you up. Currently there is no STANDARD for how Tazered patients are treated. I hear everything from "they aren't a patient" (like above) to "they should be worked up because there is risk for cardiac damage" (like in the article, and some agencies not too far away do such).

I honestly think a policy statement from REMAC is in order here.

[JJB531 652]

The Westchester REMAC did put out a position statement a few years back, but all I honestly recall from it was that prehospital providers were not permitted to remove the barbs because they were considered impaled object (a little ridiculous if you ask me).

http://www.wremsco.org/REMAC_Meeting_DOCs/remac-mtg-2007-9-17.pdf

[WAS967 97]

Seems like the REMAC back then raised a lot of the same concerns that are still present today. Question is, has anything been done in regards to in since 2007, and if not, why not? Time to do some research.

(And yeah, I agree, while it can be in strict speaking considered an impaled object, the removal is straight forward and easy. I guess by REMAC's thoughts, if we have a patient with a splinter we can't remove that either. I guess we shouldn't be taking out our credit cards for beestings with the stinger/sac still present too. )

Edited May 6, 2012 by WAS967

[JJB531 652]

As far as I know, with all the studies and varying opinions on Taser use and prehospital medical management, the REMAC probably couldn't come to a decision on a formal treatment protocol because I haven't heard anything about it since then. This leaves the decision up to the individual provider. Since everything nowadays is so "litigation conscious", I couldn't see a protocol that didn't require you to work up the patient ALS, even though in most cases it's completely unnecessary.

[WAS967 97]

Yeah, that seems to be the way this appears to be going. Just would be nice to see something from SEMO or REMAC about it. Till then, when in doubt, rule it out.

[ckroll 101]

The article referenced comes from the journal Circulation which is THE publication of the AHA. That is a peer reviewed pubication of outstanding quality, so anything published there needs to be considered seriously. Per the abstract, the issue involves electronic capture at the time of tasing resulting in immediate ventricullar tachycardia/fibrillation. If an individual arrests at the time of tasing, I'm pretty sure I'd ride that in ALS.