The Badger Herald

NEWS

UW professor to test Tasers on pigs

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Natalie Rhoads:

Wiley, ASM square off on recruiters (April 21, 2005)
Mayor: Mifflin to be held April 30 (April 22, 2005)
Judge clears Leckrone (April 25, 2005)
Suspect takes UW Senior's pocketbook at knifepoint (April 25, 2005)
SOAR to implement diversity educaiton (April 26, 2005)

by Natalie Rhoads

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

A University of Wisconsin professor plans to test his hypothesis that deaths occurring after Taser use are not a result of the darts but instead caused by the drugs present in the person’s system.

After more than 70 deaths in the past three years, the use of Taser guns, which emit a 50,000-volt electrical charge, has come into question as an ethical way to temporarily immobilize crime suspects. However, biomedical engineering professor John Webster said he hypothesizes the Taser guns are not the cause of death, and the fatalities could instead possibly be attributed to drugs present in the person’s system.

“[My] overall goal is to determine if Tasers can electrocute the heart or not,” Webster said.

Webster explained he believes drugs, such as cocaine, cause the deaths, because a vast majority of the people who died had some form of drug in their system. He added that, of the people who died, most people were conscious for several minutes following the ejection of the dart. However, if the people were being electrocuted, their blood pressure would have dropped to zero and they would have fainted.

Webster said he thinks Tasers are beneficial to policemen. He noted the death of a mentally ill person who entered a day-care center in March 2004 and was shot to death by an officer. Webster said if a Taser gun had been used, the man would likely be alive today.

“I am in favor of saving human lives, and I believe the Taser does that,” Webster said.

Amnesty International member and UW junior Tehmina Islam said the organization does not agree with the use of Taser guns on humans. She said there has not been enough research yet to determine Taser guns’ effects.

“It is an unethically inhumane treatment,” Islam said.

Islam added Amnesty International advocates the use of non-lethal, less forceful methods to detain crime suspects.

Webster, who received a $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct his two-year research, will test his hypothesis on pigs. Webster said using pigs for the research is the best option because pigs’ hearts and skin are similar to humans’.

Webster said some of the pigs will be shot with the Taser, some of the pigs will be injected with drugs by anesthesiologists and others will receive both the drugs and the Tasers. He will then measure the effects of the drugs and the Tasers on the pigs’ hearts.

Islam added she does not support Webster’s animal testing and questioned the comparison of pigs to humans.

Webster said preliminary results from his research would be available in roughly six months to a year.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (February 23, 2005 @ 9:42am):

We should test these things on Doyle.

Anonymous (February 23, 2005 @ 10:37am):

OK, so the *local* Amnesty International member (That's the best you could do? Ask your friend what she thinks and quote her in the story?) says that "there has not been enough research yet to determine Taser guns' effects." But also "does not support Webster's animal testing and questioned the comparison of pigs to humans."

Well, you can't have it both ways! How would you suggest the police stop a raving coked-to-the-gills lunatic then? Can't shoot him, can't taser him, can't do anything inhumane.... maybe you can talk him out of his drug induced rampage?

MPD should call Tehmina Islam next time to try and detain some southside cokehead resisting arrest. I suspect about the time the guy starts beating the shit out of her and tries to bite her fingers off she might have a change of heart on using reasonable force to subdue a suspect.

Anonymous (February 23, 2005 @ 12:32pm):

I find the headline of this article to be derogatory and offensive. The proper term is "police."

Anonymous (February 23, 2005 @ 3:36pm):

"Amnesty International member and UW junior Tehmina Islam said the organization does not agree with the use of Taser guns on humans. She said there has not been enough research yet to determine Taser guns' effects."

Yeah right, we have plenty of research on the effects of lead bullets so we should just stick with regular guns.

Anonymous (February 23, 2005 @ 4:27pm):

"Islam added she does not support Webster's animal testing and questioned the comparison of pigs to humans."

So there's not enough research, but she doesn't want animal testing. I guess she'll just have to volunteer herself.

Anonymous (February 23, 2005 @ 6:05pm):

Tasers are awful They are not supposed to be used on pregnant women, but often a cop cannot tell if a woman is pregnant before the 5th month. And cops overuse these things - it is just another form of power for them. If they were available during Halloween? My God, everyone would be getting zapped.

Anonymous (February 23, 2005 @ 9:49pm):

Ah yes, let us not forget all the 5-month pregnant lunatics out drinking and vandalizing State Street on Halloween.

Again, what do you suggest the police do to subdue criminals that are fighting them? Shooting them 41 times like Amadou Diallo? Try to think about the people saved by tasers, both cops and criminals.

Anonymous (March 7, 2005 @ 10:45am):

There are so many "Anonymous" commentators that I'll identify myself as "BH" for future reference.

There are so many angry comments already posted that I'll begin by saying that I believe there is a role for the Taser in police work, but it may not be exactly the same role that its manufacturer, Taser International, envisioned, because there remain unanswered questions regarding the safety and lethality of the Taser.

The Webster study on pigs is intended to provide information that will help determine what role drugs in the body of a mammal that is "Tasered" play in the health effects that are observed subsequent to "Tasering".

A visit to the Internet shows that Mr. James Ruggieri, a registered Professional Engineer, is reported to have recently presented a paper at a meeting in New Orleans of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in which he asserted that the electrical output of the Taser-M26 is above the fibrillation threshold for 50% of the human population. (In other words, Mr. Ruggieri is saying that a person shot with a Taser could find that his heart goes into ventricular fibrillation, which will be lethal if he fails to receive prompt medical attention to restore a normal heartbeat.) Taser International is challenging Mr. Ruggieri's assertions.

I find very credible the idea that the electrical "jolt" from a Taser might precipitate ventricular fibrillation and in this way kill the "Tasered" person. This is a possibility that seems to me to be even MORE worthwhile exploring in a laboratory study than the currently funded study being pursued by UW biomedical engineering professor John Webster. In fact, it seems to me that it would be easier for Professor Webster to interpret the results from his study, if this other study had ALREADY been done! (Unfortunately, nobody seems interested in doing it.)

Since the Department of Justice is funding Professor Webster's study, it is pretty clear that the desired outcome from the Webster study is a finding that the Taser does not kill in the absence of drugs in the "Tasered" mammal's body. It will be interesting to examine the details of the design of the Webster study, to see whether any other outcome from this study will be possible. (One of the ways that scientifiic deceit occurs is by designing a study in a way that appears to be scientifically sound, but in reality will permit only ONE conclusion to be drawn: the conclusion that was wanted at the outset.)

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was established nearly a century ago, this country has felt that U.S. citizens have a right to know the effects on health of the things that go into their bodies, so that they can avoid experiencing unintended ill effects. It seems to me reasonable that this same expectation should apply to the use of a device like the Taser on people.

I can't understand why any responsible law enforcement officer would want to use a device like the Taser on people (except possibly in a situation that was a serious emergency) when its effects on people or mammals have not yet been carefully studied.

On the other hand, I can certainly understand why a sadistic person would be DELIGHTED at the opportunity to use a Taser, and might even go out of his way to use it as often as possible. Indeed, I promptly found several Internet sites that show the attraction of the Taser to law enforcement officers who are either sadists or habitual physical abusers of others. For them, the Taser is a dream come true!

This strikes me as one of the most serious drawbacks of having a Taser in the law enforcement arsenal: it encourages and powerfully reinforces any latent tendencies toward sadism or physically abusive behavior on the part of the person using it. (This means that the personality of the individual law enforcement officer becomes the critical factor in whether the Taser is used properly.) I fear that in the present situation, where Tasers are being used as casually as though they were paint-ball guns, we are looking at America rapidly on the road to becoming a police state, like Nazi Germany was in the 1930s!

The basic research to determine the lethality of the Taser simply has not been done. Taser International would have you believe otherwise, but this is a company that wants to maximize its profits, and--like drug companies--is going to believe and assert whatever will be most favorable to its financial interests.

The public would best be served by having disinterested parties evaluate the Taser's effects on mammals (and also by having disinterested parties fund these studies) but all indications are that this will NOT happen. Instead, it appears that parties with vested interests will be involved in every way with the evaluation of the Taser, which means one can expect that a good deal of "disinformation" will be disseminated, disguised as "scientific evidence". (If I seem pessimistic, it is because I know from experience in related areas just how much scientific deceit can makes its way into the scientific literature, sufficiently well disguised that most people cannot recognize the flaws and therefore believe reports that they properly ought to regard with great skepticism.)

I've said enough for now. -- BH

Anonymous (March 7, 2005 @ 1:00pm):

BH here again, with some literature references on ventricular fibrillation.

R. A. DeSilva
George Ralph Mines, ventricular fibrillation and the discovery of the vulnerable period.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., vol. 29, no. 6 (May 1997):1394-1420.

This paper reports how George Ralph Mines, in work done 90 years ago, discovered the "vulnerable period". What this means is that whether an electrical stimulus will send the heart into ventricular fibrillation or not depends, in part, on WHEN the electrical stimulus arrives at the heart. If it arrives during the "vulnerable period" of the cycle, then even a modest electrical stimulus can put the heart into fibrillation. But if the electrical stimulus arrives outside the "vulnerable period", then the heart will NOT go into fibrillation.

One implication of this, with respect to Taser use, is that the duration of the vulnerable period as a fraction of the total cycle length gives the probability that an electrical signal administered at a random time will arrive in the vulnerable period and therefore be capable of bringing on fibrillation. A review of the literature should enable a value to be attached to this fraction (I haven't conducted such a review of the literature) which would enable a start on the task of quantitating the risk that a person shot with a Taser would experience ventricular fibrillation, and therefore be at risk of death.

If anyone wants to understand these ideas, I recommend reading:

Sudden Cardiac Death: A Problem in Topology by Arthur T. Winfree [who died in 2002]. This was published in Scientific American, vol. 248, no. 5 (May 1983): 144-161.

If anyone wants to learn more about George Ralph Mines, visit the following URL:

http://www.clinicalcardiology.org/briefs/200108briefs/cc24-571.profiles_mines.html

and read how a promising research scientist's life was cut short, probably because he was experimenting on himself, all alone in the lab.

It's beginning to look like getting shot with a Taser really could precipitate ventricular fibrillation, with likely lethal results, unless the officers are trained and equipped to respond appropriately. (The probability of this happening is low, but NOT ZERO!)

This implies that the following principles should be followed by law enforcement personnel using Tasers:

(1) Fire a Taser ONLY at a person you are willing to KILL.
(2) Fire a Taser at a given person as FEW times as possible (ideally, only ONCE).
(3) If there is a reasonable alternative to using the Taser, use it.
(4) Every law enforcement officer equipped with a Taser should also be equipped with a defibrillator (and trained in its use) so that if his use of a Taser produces ventricular fibrillation in his target, he will be able to act promptly to save that person's life.

It looks like the Taser is really a lethal weapon with very low lethality, in contrast to what Taser International advertises. And unlike a gun, which the shooter can aim, thereby exercising some control over the damage done to the target by his choice of where to aim the gun, the Taser has to be fired in ignorance of its effect on the target. Chance determines whether or not the target will go into ventricular fibrillation; the shooter has no control over this. So the person firing a Taser can never know whether his traget will be just stunned, or put into ventricular fibrillation; therefore he must always be ready for the latter, though it will occur rarely.

This is enough for now. - BH

Anonymous (March 8, 2005 @ 1:29pm):

BH here again.

Taser International designed the Taser to incapacitate skeletal muscles (e.g., the muscles of arms and legs). The heart is also a muscle, though cardiac muscle [myocardium] differs in certain respects from skeletal muscle. The biggest difference is that the normal heart contracts spontaneously, without the brain intentionally willing each contraction to occur. If this were not the case, falling asleep would be lethal for us!

Because the heart is a muscle, one cannot expect it to escape all effects of a Taser strike; but neither would one expect the heart to be affected in exactly the same way that skeletal muscle is.

If the Taser were to be a TRULY non-lethal weapon, it would have to be designed so that a Taser strike could not possibly stop the heart from beating. I wonder: did Taser International ever consult cardiologists or other scientists who are specialists in the field of ventricular fibrillation, in an effort to ensure that the Taser was designed so that it could never initiate a series of events that would result in the production of ventricular fibrillation?

There is a considerable literature on the topic, including some papers published by Arthur T. Winfree before he died. For those interested, vol. 8, issue no. 1, of the scientific journal CHAOS contains a section subtitled Fibrillation in Normal Ventricular Myocardium. There are 18 papers in this section. One of them is provocatively titled:

Vulnerability to ventricular fibrillation.
Michiel J. Janise. pages 149-156.

I haven't yet had a chance to read this, but it looks interesting and informative.

This is all for now. - BH

Anonymous (March 8, 2005 @ 1:35pm):

Anonymous (March 8, 2005 @ 1:44pm):

Anonymous (March 8, 2005 @ 10:00pm):

BH here again. I apologize for the multiple postings of my last comment. The computer refused to respond for the longest time after I sent the first "POST" command; then when it did finally respond, I guess it acted on multiple POST commands I had sent in my frustration at the non-response. Maybe somebody at the Badger Herald can delete the extras.

I notice that I failed to give a publication date for the issue of CHAOS that I referred to. Here it is:

CHAOS, vol. 8, no. 1, March 1998.

Sorry for the omission. Bye for now. - BH

Anonymous (March 9, 2005 @ 12:14pm):

BH here again. I noticed another paper in Chaos, vol. 8, issue no. 1 (March 1998) that may be of interest:

Spatial organization, predictability, and determinism in ventricular fibrillation.
P. V. Bayly et al. Pages 103-115.

Be warned that it will be difficult to undertand these papers published in CHAOS unless you have first studied the Scientific American (May 1983) article by A.T. Winfree.

Ventricular fibrillation is a MUCH more complex phenomenon than Taser International would like to believe!

That's all for now. - BH

Anonymous (March 9, 2005 @ 11:01pm):

BH here again. I've started to read that paper by Michiel J. Janse [Chaos 8(1):149-156 (March 1998)] titled "Vulnerability to ventricular fibrillation". I haven't yet completed the first two pages, but I've learned that there are 2 different circumstances that increase the probability that an electric shock will initiate ventricular fibrillation (VF).

One of these is acute regional ischemia (when the blood supply to a part of the heart is suddenly stopped). This would mean that a person who had previously had a heart attack, with some death of myocardial tissue, or in whom a Taser strike induced a heart attack, so that heart tissue was beginning to die at the time the person was being "Tasered", would be at an increased risk of developing VF, compared to a person with a normal heart.

The other circumstance is when there is enhanced activity of the sympathetic nervous system. This is the part of the autonomous nervous system that--when activated by (for example) exercise, emotion or stress--results in an increase in the heart rate and an increase in the force of cardiac contraction. What this means is that someone who has been exercising hard, and then was "Tasered", would be at increased risk of developing VF. Someone who had just been emotionally shocked, and then was "Tasered", would be at increased risk of developing VF; and if the experience of being hit with a Taser itself produced a strong emotional response, this could increase the risk of developing VF.

Who knows what more I will learn, after I get past the second page of this paper! Bye for now. - BH

Anonymous (March 10, 2005 @ 2:50pm):

BH here again.

The Police Department of Madison, Wisconsin, has a Web site:

www.cityofmadison.com/police/

where its report on Tasers (written by Lieutenant Victor Wahl) is posted. I've looked over this report, which contains a wealth of useful and interesting information.

Because it was written by a member of the Madison Police Department, this report incorporates the biases that are currently typical of law enforcement: the Taser is assumed to be a nonlethal weapon (mostly because Taser International says it is), and it is assumed that if the Taser causes a human death, that death will occur immediately after the Taser is used (which sounds sensible, but really needs careful scrutiny).

In any report, the conclusions drawn are a function of the assumptions made. In fact, conclusions often depend more strongly on the assumptions made, than they do on the data that is being evaluated in the report! What this means is that if you change the assumptions, you may well change the conclusions, even though the data being evaluated remain the same!

In Lieutenant Wahl's report on the Taser, he lists 4 "key findings" of his report.

I consider that the last 2 "key findings" he lists depend on assumptions he made that I question; this means that these two "key findings" may NOT actually be true.

Here are the last 2 "key findings" listed in his report:

- The Taser has proven to be a safe and effective use-of-force tool.
- MPD officers are deploying the Taser in an appropriate manner.

Please note that in questioning these two findings, I am NOT declaring them false; I am simply saying that there is not a valid basis at this time for reaching these conclusions.

In comments previously posted here, I have addressed the issue of whether the Taser is a nonlethal weapon. This is actually what is currently in doubt: Taser International claims that the Taser is a nonlethal weapon and most law enforcement organizations have accepted this assertion as correct; but the many human deaths that have occurred are now stimulating public concern and causing people to ask whether the Taser REALLY is a nonlethal weapon.

What I see is that Taser International developed the Taser on the basis of a very simple model; this model may well be appropriate for the action of electricity on skeletal muscle, but it is clearly much too simplistic a model for the action of electricity on cardiac muscle.

On the basis of this very simple model, Taser International asserts that the Taser is safe: that it won't stop the human heart from beating by producing ventricular fibrillation. This is where I see Taser International making an enormous error. The firm has completely disregarded the medical evidence accumulated over the past century. Its assertions of safety in this respect are not credible to me.

Now let's look at the other assumption in this report (which I believe is also made by Taser International): that if the Taser is going to stop a person's heart from beating, it will do so immediately, without any time delay.

On the basis of the very simple model that Taser International has been using, this is a reasonable assumption to make. There is no basis for expecting other than an immediate response, in the simple model.

But I have already pointed out that this very simple model is NOT a good one for the response of cardiac muscle! The fact that the heart contracts spontaneously makes it quite different from skeletal muscle. The model of the heart's action is necessarily much more complex (which is why I previously posted some references to the published literature having to do with ventricular fibrillation).

Careful study of this literature makes it evident that yes, the possibilty does exist that the electric shock of a Taser could initiate a sequence of events that could, after some time had passed, result in the occurrence of ventricular fibrillation. (This cannot happen to skeletal muscle; it can happen only to cardiac muscle.)

Notice that this assertion does not say that a delayed effect WILL occur, or that it would occur often; it merely says that it COULD occur. In other words, there does exist a set of circumstances under which a delayed effect can occur, therefore there is a non-zero probability that a Taser strike could cause a person's heart to go into ventricular fibrillation minutes, or even hours, after the use of a Taser on this person.

For those who wonder how long this delay could be, I should say that I don't think evidence on this point can be found in the medical literature. I think it will have to come from the collective experience of people who have been "Tasered".

I haven't read Lieutenant Wahl's report in detail. It contains a wealth of information of various kinds, and obviously would repay careful scrutiny.

These comments about Lieutenant Wahl's report are being posted in order to caution those who might otherwise accept his report uncritically, and treat it as the final word on the matter. His report makes a good beginning, but the last two "key findings" in the report--the ones that I quoted above--remain very much in question.

An incident report on page 7 (second paragraph) caught my eye: officers responding to a robbery chased multiple suspects, preparing to use Tasers, whereupon most or all of the fleeing suspects halted and complied with the officers' orders. No Taser was actually fired, it seems; the deterrent effect of the threat to use the Taser was sufficient to elicit co-operation from the suspects.

My comment: THIS represents TRULY NONLETHAL use of a Taser!

That's all for now. - BH

Anonymous (March 11, 2005 @ 4:15pm):

BH here again, with further comments on Madison Police Lieutenant Victor Wahl's report on the Taser.

The first portion of his report reviews the use of the Taser by Madison, WI, police. Another portion, headed Taser Safety, addresses the media reports of "Taser-related" deaths. This is the section I studied carefully.

He mentions a DoD report (not yet available in full).

He mentions a paper recently published in the journal Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, vol. 28, no. 1, Supplement 1 (Jan. 2005), pages S284-S287, titled "Cardiac Safety of Neuromuscular Incapacitating Defensive Devices". The authors are Wayne C. McDaniel, Robert A. Stratbucker, Max Nerheim & James E. Brewer.

Brewer is listed as employed by Brewer Consulting, Minneapolis, MN; Stratbucker & Nerheim work for Taser International, Scottsdale, AZ; and McDaniel is at the University of Missouri-Columbia. So 2 of the 4 authors are paid employees of Taser International, and the consultant is very likely being paid by Taser International, also.

With 3 of the 4 authors being financially dependent upon Taser International, I wondered where funding for the experiment came from. The only information I could find was a footnote on the title page: "Partial funding received from the Office of Naval Research, contract N00014-02-C-0059." I presume the balance of the funding came from Taser International, although there is no statement to this effect.

I began to be very curious about the first author, McDaniel. His e-mail address is given and he is the one to contact for reprints. Where I had expected to see a University Department listed, I found only "Technology and Special Projects".

Further searching disclosed that the University of Missouri-Columbia recently decided to encourage entrepreneurial activity by its faculty, staff and students by establishing a Technology Business Incubator that will provide space and services to nurture technology start-up companies. The Office of Technology and Special Projects is the primary staffing point for incubation requests at the University.

So McDaniel is working in a new university office promoting the growth of young technology companies. This is obviously a revenue-producing office within the University.

But what did he do previously, I wondered. It turns out that, 4 years ago, he had the title of Research Assistant Professor, Cardiothoracic Surgery, on that campus! In fact, he spoke at a seminar series on the topic "Cardiac Electrical Defibrillation" in September, 2001, on campus.

So McDaniel is a man with medical training--a cardiathoracic surgeon--who has left the field of medicine. I wonder why he is no longer actively involved in the practice of medicine, but I haven't explored further to find out.

The experiment, conducted on anesthetized pigs, was intended to confirm the hypothesis that the induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF) requires significantly greater discharge levels than are delivered by electrical neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) devices (such as a Taser). Or, to put it more succinctly, the idea was to prove in the laboratory that a mammal hit with a Taser won't develop VF as a result.

One objective of the experiment was to develop a "safety index" for each pig used, based on its weight. The procedure was to apply the electrical stimulus at a fixed voltage of 6000 V, but at various difference levels of capacitance (meaning different levels of current flow). On each pig the experiment began at the standard level of NMI discharge, increasing in steps (with a 90-second wait period following each step) until VF occurred; then the pig was defibrillated with an automatic external defibrillator and a 5-minute wait ensued before the next shock was applied, which was in the downward direction. When VF was no longer induced, this was confirmed by 5 discharges of the same strength. (It appears that this procedure was then repeated for the same animal, though I didn't find it reported how many times this procedure was repeated on a given pig.)

The minimum fibrillating discharge level for the pig was defined as the lowest discharge that induced VF at least once. Maximum safe level was defined as the highest discharge which could be applied 5 times without induction of VF. The average of these two values was called the VF threshold. The safety index was defined as the ratio of the VF threshold to the standard NMI discharge (48 microC = 6000 V x 0.008 microfarads).

The paper reports that 9 experiments were completed, but Table I gives data on 10 pigs, whose weights ranged from 30 to 117 kg. As was expected, the experimental data showed a relation between the safety index and animal weight.

This experiment didn't use an actual Taser, but a device designed to mimic a Taser. On the assumption that people will respond as these anesthetized pigs did, a safety index >= 20 for adult human beings having a weight above 45 kg was calculated and reported.

The authors assert that this study confirms the cardiac safety of the experimental NMI device used, which was designed to emulate the performance of commercially used devices (e.g., Tasers in actual use).

If people hit by Tasers are well-modelled by anesthetized pigs, then this conclusion might be justified. So the question is: is the anesthetized pig a good model for a live human suspect being apprehended by police?

In earlier postings I've reported that such factors as level of exercise and degree of emotional arousal affect vulnerability to VF. Both these factors are at a minimal level in anesthetized pigs, while Lt. Wahl's report makes it evident that they are both typically at maximal levels in the people against whom police use a Taser. So the data from this experiment really is NOT relevant to the law enforcement experience, even if we accept that the pig is a good physiological model of a human being (which seems to be a reasonable assumption).

In other words, this report provides good fodder for the Taser International propaganda/public relations machine, but it really ISN'T relevant to the situation under which law enforcement officers usually use the Taser--because Tasers are virtually always used against excited, active people, as Wahl makes clear in his report.

Lieutenant Wahl didn't seem to be aware of this drawback to the PACE report, though. He wrongly accepted its findings as evidence that the Taser is safe when used on human beings by law enforcement officers.

His report next mentions the conclusion of a study of the Taser undertaken by the UK Defense Scientific Advisory Council: "The risk of lfe-threatening or serious injuries from the M26 Taser is very low." This is news? This has been known for a long time!

Then he gets to the REALLY INTERESTING part of his report, where he looks at the 90 cases of Taser-related deaths occurring between 1999 and 2005 reported in the media (mainly by the Arizona Republic). Here is his summary:

1. Of the 90 cases, 89 involved significant physical exertion on the part of the suspect: fighting or fleeing.

[These 89 people would be more vulnerable to VF from an electrical stimulus than "normal" because of this activity.-BH]

2. Of the 51 cases for which information was available, 41 had ingested a controlled substance prior to police contact (cocaine, PCP, metamphetamine).

[It's unclear what the effect of these drugs would be; they probably DO have an effect, but I've seen no study indicating what the effect would be.-BH]

3. Of the 59 cases for which information was available, there was a significant time delay between application of the Taser and the suspect's death; in one case, the delay was a week. (Information was not available for the other 31 cases.)

A very interesting part of the report was headed: "What did the coroners/medical examiners in these 90 cases say?"

In 46 cases the cause of death was unknown or the autopsy report was unavailable; this leaves 44 cases. In 23 of these death was attributed to lethal drug consumption. The remaining 21 cases can be divided into a group of 9 and two groups of six each. Death was attributed to medical causes in 9 cases. Trauma unrelated to the Taser (e.g., gunshot wound) was the cause of death in 6 cases. In the remaining 6 cases, the Taser was identified as contributing to (but not causing) the death.

Let's look at these last 6 cases (all men).

J. Borden (47 yr.) had a massively enlarged heart and toxic drug levels present in his body; the Taser was applied multiple times to his abdomen and buttocks during a struggle in jail. Although a national forensic expert reviewed the case, concluding that the Taser did not cause or contribute to his death, the original coroner has since said that the pain from the Taser frightened Borden, causing him to have a heart attack. [There is no information about the time of death, though the coroner's comment suggests that it happened within a few minutes of the Taser strike. If so, this could very well be a death to which the Taser contributed causally, as it was used multiple times, and two factors leading to increased VF vulnerability are present: vigorous physical activity and strong emotion.-BH]

W. Lomax (26 yr.) stuggled violently with police while under influence of PCP; he died 19 hours after Taser deployment of cardiac arrest. [While 19 hours is a long tme, it is not impossible that this death resulted from Taser use; the physical activity increased his vulnerability to VF, and we don't yet know the effect of PCP. Data showing the effects of drugs on VF is needed to make a final determination.-BH]

W. Teasley (31 yr.) became violent during the booking process; he was a large man with numerous medical problems (enlarged heart and spleen, liver double normal size, hardened arteries and a constricted airway). [There is no information about his time of death; if it occurred promptly after Taser use, it would certainly be plausible that the Taser contributed causally, because of the violent activity. His airway constriction might have played a role, too.-BH]

G. Gray (25 yr.) resisted officers and was hit with a Taser twice. He had an abnormal heart and a history of cocaine use. The coroner ruled that the emotional and physical stress the subject went through during the struggle with police, including the Taser deployment, led to a lethal heart rhythm. [There is no indication of when death occurred, but it if happened immediately or shortly after the second Taser application, this could well be a death to which the Taser contributed causally. The coroner shows good knowledge of VF physiology.-BH]

M. Salazar (29 yr.) died 2 days after he was hit with a Taser while resisting officers. He had cocaine in his system. The Medical Examiner ruled that Salazr died from complications from excited delerium due to cocaine intoxication, but added that the Taser and stress from the struggle with police contributed. [This is a highly suspicious death, but information on the role of drugs is needed before any firm conclusion can be drawn. The 2-day gap between Taser deployment and death, while long, may not impossibly long.-BH]

M. Rosa (38 yr.) resisted police, a Taser was deployed, he was taken into custody and to a hospital, where he later died. The coroner ruled that he died of a heart attack due to metamphetamine intoxication, but listed the Taser and the struggle with police as contributing factors. [Did he suffer a heart attack, or VF; or one after the other in rapid succession? More information is needed to evaluate this case, including the effect of metamphetamine. If he actually died of VF, the coroner's ruling may be substantially correct.-BH]

Lieutenant Wahl doesn't find it credible that the Taser contributed to, or caused, any of these deaths. I think otherwise.

Let me clarify what I mean by using the phrase "contribute causally". I mean that if the Taser had NOT been used, death would NOT have occurred. The reason I don't just say "caused" is because there is NOT a SINGLE CAUSE; there are multiple factors involved, so that if ANY ONE of them is removed, the death probably would NOT have occurred. So which one do you then call THE cause? There is no SINGLE cause. The physical activity and emotions are contributing causally, also. [This is probably why law enforcement officers can be hit with a Taser and experience little effect. They are calm and relaxed, not fearful and not fighting or fleeing; this means that their risk for developing VF is minimal (just like the anesthetized pigs).]

Now let me address the big reason why so many law enforcement officers disbelieve that the Taser could be involved in a death when death does not immediately follow application of the Taser. The accepted model is electrocution, which produces an immediate effect. This is certainly ONE way that use of the Taser can cause death, and it is undoubtedly the most common way.

But if death is actually caused by VF, then the electrical stimulus from the Taser can (in theory) establish a persistent rotating wave of electrical excitation in the heart which is not initially lethal but which, if something then happens to increase the vulnerability of the individual, could subsequently BECOME lethal because of the subsequent physiological change. My guess--stimulated by reading Lt. Wahl's report--is that drugs play a role in this physiological shift that gives rise to delayed death. It looks to me like the subjects that died after many hours may have done so because their body's physiology became more vulnerable as the drug left their system while they were incarcerated or hospitalized. (These were probably habitual users of drugs, so their bodies may have behaved in a physiologically different manner from what would be found in a person who was using a drug for the first time.)

I have a feeling that if all the 90 cases could be reviewed, there would be more where the Taser seemed likely to be a contributing causal factor in the death.

All this raises some questions about the adequacy of the experimental design of UW Professor Webster's study. It would be unfortunate if his half-million-dollar study, paid for by federal tax dollars, should turn out NOT to address the issue of drugs and Taser use in a manner adequate to answer the questions that have been raised about the safety of the Taser.

Since Professor Webster is quoted in Lt. Wahl's report as believing in the simple eloctrocution model to the exclusion of any other, it seems UNLIKELY that his study will address those issues that would enable questions about delayed Taser-related deaths to be resolved. Considering the current level of public interest, this would be MOST unfortunate!

That's all for now.-BH

Anonymous (March 13, 2005 @ 6:49pm):

BH here again (on March 13, 2005).

I have just read the AP story dated February 10, 2005, concerning the Department of Defense study of Tasers. What I have posted prior to today was written in ignorance of the DoD study findings (and in ignorance of the CBS news report on it).

I thought it was important to say this, because the DoD conclusions are essentially the same as the conclusions I had come to, quite independently. The Taser is a device of low lethality, but it CAN be lethal in certain circumstances that can be fairly well predicted, so it is definitely NOT a NONLETHAL weapon.

The Taser can be used most safely on a calm, relaxed individual in good health. (This is a major reason why law enforcement officers who allow themselves to be the target of a Taser in a training exercise have not been reported to suffer harm from the experience.)

The Taser can be used fairly safely on a person in good health who is not addicted to any illegal drugs and is not drunk, who is in an agitated emotional state or is strongly engaged in physical activity, or both.

However, when the Taser is used on a person who has consumed drugs (including ethyl alcohol), the long-term consequences to the individual are much less certain. This means that hospital patients, who are likely to have recently been administered one or more medications, are at an elevated risk of a life-threatening outcome following deployment of a Taser.

If the Taser is used on a person whose health has been compromised, especially if there has been damage to the heart (e.g., the person has survived a heart attack), the risk of cardiac arrest--either immediate or delayed--increases further. [Because older people are more likely to have major health problems, or to have had a heart attack, their risk of a lethal outcome will be higher than that for a younger person (excluding situations where the person is drug-intoxicated).]

Drug-intoxicated people may be at highest risk of death--immediate or delayed--following deployment of a Taser.

High-risk people may, after apprehension, most properly belong in a hospital setting until any drugs have completely cleared from the body, as the risk of their dying--most likely from ventricular fibrillation, though possibly also from cessation of respiration--may be comparatively high.

Of course, a Taser should never be used on a woman who is pregnant, as there might be damaging effects on her fetus.

In my second posting, I suggested some principles that law enforcement officers who want to use a Taser safely could apply. I've reviewed them, and I still think they are sound.

As for alternatives to the use of a Taser, whatever happened to tear gas? I know it isn't suitable for use on every occasion, but when a person gets a whiff of the stuff, it certainly motivates him to move away from it! And if he get a strong dose, he can't see because his eyes are continually watering. He is effectively blinded, which should make it easier for a few law enforcement officers to apprehend him.

To summarize, the Taser is NOT the all-purpose, safe device that Taser International has represented it as being. Law enforcement officers should have non-lethal alternatives to the Taser available for use in those situations where Taser use is contra-indicated. Tear gas is one such alternative, but there need to be others. (Idea: how about a net in which to entangle a violent individual who is temporarily blinded by tear gas?)

If a high-risk individual is "Tasered" and jailed, a close watch should be kept for the development of a sudden medical emergency (cardiac arrest or cessation of respiration) and appropriate life-saving emergency medical attention should be immediately available. (This is why such an individual perhaps should be hospitalized.)

That's all for now.-BH

Anonymous (March 14, 2005 @ 2:15pm):

BH here again (on March 14, 2005). Some of you are probably wondering who I am. Let me first say who I'm not.

I'm not a medical doctor, or a biologist, or a physiologist. I'm not any kind of engineer, either.

And I'm sure that most of you have figured out that I'm not in law enforcement!

I have no particular knowledge of the Taser, but I do have a professional interest in the effects of electrical stimulation on the health of mammals and human beings.

It happens that I read Winfree's article in Scientific American when it first came out in 1983, and never forgot it. So when all the questions about the effects of Tasers on human health hit the news recently, I just went back to that article, looked it over, and decided that ventricular fibrillation was almost certainly the phenomenon responsible for most of the deaths of people who had been "Tasered" and then suffered cardiac arrest. So I did a computer search of the medical literature, and up popped the relevant scientific information about ventricular fibrillation--and I began posting my comments here.

My working hypothesis is that being shot with a Taser sets up one of those rotating waves in cardiac muscle. This rotating wave is persistent (though I'm sure nobody knows how long it can persist), but eventually it will die out, at least in a person who is healthy and has no heart damage. (In a person who DOES have heart damage, this rotating wave may be extremely persistent.)

When this rotating wave is present, though, it constitutes a sort of silent internal "time bomb" because, as long as it is present, certain shifts in the physiological variables of the individual can precipitate ventricular fibrillation (VF).

Shifts in physiological variables occur all the time. We experience a circadian rhythm (regular variation in physiological variables according to the time of day or night) but there are other shifts that take place when we exercise vigorously, or when we experience various strong emotions. It appears that delayed VF can occur if a certain shift of physiological variables takes place AFTER a Taser has been used on a person, while that rotating wave is still present.

If the shift in physiological variables has taken place BEFORE the Taser is deployed, then VF would occur immediately after the Taser was deployed, without any delay.

Two of the people for whom Madison Police Lieutenant Wahl presented data in his report were on drugs when the Taser was used against them, but died some time afterward. I have wondered whether the physiological changes that occurred as the drug left their body--during withdrawal--may have placed them at risk, assuming that they had a rotating wave on the heart that had persisted for an extended period.

This is something that could be explored in the laboratory, using pigs, it seems to me. But the physiology of the occasional drug user and the habitual drug user will be different. Professor Webster was planning to investigate the effects of cocaine in his pig study, as I understand it, but I think he had planned a "first time drug user" model for the pigs. This could produce misleading results, when applied to human beings who--from the data that Lieutenant Wahl reported--seem more likely to be habitual users addicted to the drug they were under the influence of when apprehended.

A controlled laboratory study is the right way to investigate the differences between the physiology of the first-time drug user and the habitual drug user. So I thought perhaps Professor Webster's study should have two populations of pigs on the drug: one that has become addicted to the drug, and another that has not. Then the conditions required to produce onset of VF could be explored in both populations of pigs as the drug left the body. (The drug leaving the body would constitute the shift in physiological variables that might change the risk of VF.) This is an experiment that could be carried out on anesthetized pigs that, it seems to me, could produce useful information applicable to human beings who had been incarcerated after Taser use, and then suddenly went into cardiac arrest and died.

Of course, this is not the experiment that Professor Webster devised and for which he was awarded a grant. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has asked UW-Madison Chancellor John D. Wiley to halt the Webster study, on the grounds that it would not produce any useful new information. If his study design were modified, though, perhaps some really useful information could be obtained that would be relevant to the health of human beings.

I still haven't said who I am. Lately I have been paying a lot of attention to what I call "scientific deceit". This is different from scientific fraud, which is outright lying: for example, falsification of data. Scientific deceit consists of misleading others without actually committing outright scientific fraud. I have discovered a lot of it in the scientific literature where electrical or electromagnetic exposures are employed. [The drug companies do the same thing with medical evaluation of drugs, but I haven't studied that.]

It is very common to set up an experiment in such a way that the outcome will be what the funding source desires. There are a variety of different ways to do this. One of them is accomplished by the way the experiment is designed. I had wondered whether this might be the case for the experiment planned by Prof. Webster. [I do not know the answer to this; but even if his experimental design were flawed, this would not necessarily imply any intent to deceive on the part of Prof. Webster; it could simply mean that the model upon which he was basing his experiment was not the best one to use. An honest academic can be "used and abused" by his funding source; I have seen it happen. The U.S. Department of Justice, which is providing the funding for Prof. Webster's experiment, may want a particular outcome from the experiment, and may have chosen Prof. Webster to do the experiment because it believed his design would be most likely to produce the desired experimental outcome.] We have seen bias in the law enforcement community; I pointed it out when I reviewed Lieutenant Wahl's report on the Taser.

If Taser International wants to fund a biased study, it has every right to spend its own money that way. But the U.S. Dept. of Justice is spending taxpayers' money, and it does NOT have a right to fund a biased study with THAT money!

So it is appropriate to raise the issue of whether Prof. Webster's study should go forth as it was originally planned, even at this late date. I think that PETA's request to Chancellor John D. Wiley to halt Prof. Webster's study is reasonable; there needs to be a careful review, I think, with possible revision of some portions of the experimental protocol, to improve the likelihood that the results will be useful and meaningful. Otherwise, Prof. Webster's experiment might just be another in a long line of experiments done to generate data making it appear that the Taser is safer than it actually is.

It is particularly important right now to address this kind of issue, because Taser International wants to begin selling Tasers to the general public. Wisconsin prohibits this, but many states (Illinois is one) don't. It is imperative that we get experimental data that DO NOT MISLEAD, but permit an accurate evaluation of the hazard to human health associated with Taser deployment. The Taser may be too hazardous a device to permit its sale to whatever individual wants to buy one.

That's all for now.-BH

Anonymous (March 30, 2005 @ 4:44pm):

BH here again (March 30, 2005).

The more I learn about the study that UW-Madison Emeritus Professor John Webster is planning to carry out on pigs, the more concerned I become that it could generate information that is misleading and deceptive, mostly because of inadequacies in the design of the experiment. If I am correct, this experiment might waste half a million dollars of federal money, the lives of perhaps ten pigs (which are remarkably intelligent animals) might be uselessly destroyed, and the public might be badly served because the parties who stand to gain from this situation will use the data to try to convince the public that their preconceived notions are correct, although they may not be correct in every respect!

How sad it is that the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an educational institution that is generally highly-regarded, should be the agency for such activity that is counter to the public interest. I fear the "Wisconsin Idea" is truly dead and buried!

Who are the parties who stand to gain from this situation? One is certainly Taser International. Apparently the company did almost no testing of its product on animals before putting it on the market (according to an article in the New York Times). Now that testing is being done, the company naturally would like to make sure that the test results support the statement of 100% safety that it has made.

The other party is Emeritus Professor John Webster. He has made no secret of the fact that he does not believe that Tasers have killed people who have been "Tasered" while they were high on a drug; he has stated quite publicly that he believes any deaths of these people after being shot with a Taser were caused by the drug.

Whether he is right or wrong depends in part on how "cause" is defined when there are several possible causes. If the death would not have occurred in the ABSENCE of the use of the Taser, do you say that the Taser caused the death? If the death would not have occurred had the person who was "Tasered" NOT had a drug in his system, do you say that the presence of the drug was responsible for his death? Suppose BOTH these "if-statements" are true--the death required both the presence of the drug and the Taser strike, and would not have occurred if either one had been absent; what then is the cause of death? The only honest answer is "both acting simultaneously". (Professor Webster gives the impression--perhaps erroneously--that he would blame the drug for any death that occurred when it was present.)

I don't know how Professor Webster was chosen by the U.S. Department of Justice to receive the half-million-dollar grant to fund his experiment, but it is based on a simple model (valid for skeletal muchcle, but of doubtful validity for cardiac muscle) that Taser International endorses, so I suspect that the company helped steer the money toward Professor Webster with a little behind-the-scenes activity at the U.S. DOJ.

Professor Webster has been quoted as saying, "The question I'm trying to answer is, can Tasers electrocute subjects? My hypothesis is, no." [Source: THE CAPITAL TIMES, Wednesday, March 30, 2005]

The professor has a point of view and he has stated it clearly. Almost everyone has a bias of some kind, so I don't consider his bias, itself, to be a problem. The problem is that his bias seems to have influenced the design of his experiment in a manner that, in my view, minimizes the likelihood of the experiment producing results contrary to his bias, and maximizes the likelihood of its producing results consistent with his bias.

In short, if the public is to be well-served by this experiment, I think its design needs to be improved, so that there is as much opportunity for results to be obtained that are inconsistent with Professor Webster's hypothesis, as for results that are consistent with it. This is the way an experiment should be designed for a FAIR scientific test of a hypothesis!

Here is another quote from Professor Webster, from the same source: "If you Taser someone with a cocaine overdose, and they die, did they die of the Taser? I know that many people make it to the emergency room and then die. In my opinion, they were not electrocuted by the Taser. They were high on drugs."

Apparently about 10 pigs will be used. Some will receive only the electric shock that simulates a Taser strike, some will receive cocaine or another drug, and some will get both a drug and the electrical shock.

Let's suppose that only one drug is used. Then there could be 3 pigs in each of the three categories. Is this enough pigs to get good data? I don't know--my own experience leads me to think there should be a few more pigs in each category--but Professor Webster apparently thinks these numbers are high enough, and the review committee apparently agreed with him.

But the experimental plan seems to be to use both cocaine and some other drug. With two different drugs, there would be five categories:

1) electric shock only;
2) drug A only;
3) drug B only;
4) drug A AND electric shock;
5) drug B AND electric shock.

Therefore, if a total of ten pigs will be used, presumably there will be 2 pigs in each category.

Two animals in a single category is as low as one can go, and still get data that can be statistically evaluated! Will the statistics of small samples (as opposed to conventional statistial techniques) be used in the evaluation of the data, I wonder? With numbers these small, I think think the statistics of small samples SHOULD be used.

And why should this experiment on 10 pigs take two years and cost half a million dollars? Is there only one apparatus in the lab, so each pig has to be individually experimented on, one after the other? This experiment will cost $50,000 per pig! That's pretty darn expensive!

But there is another problem I see. Are the pigs that get a drug going to be representative of "new drug users" or "habitual drug users"? The physiology of these two groups is different, so these really need to be treated as separate categories.

The Taser seems to be the device of choice for law enforcement officers who have to deal with a person high on drugs. Are these people mostly habitual drug users, or people using a drug for the first time?

My guess is, they are habitual drug users, but I don't really know. The best place to get a reliable answer is from a law enforcement organization that has used Tasers; for example, from the Madison, WI, Police Department.

An improvement to the one-drug design would be the following categories:

1) electric shock only;
2) drug only, first-time exposure to drug;
3) drug only, habituated to drug;
4) electric shock & drug (first-time expos);
5) electric shock & drug (habituated).

These 5 categories could also be tested using a total of 10 pigs, and this design would make it possible to see whether there is a difference between the way the pigs in categories 2 and 3 respond to the electric shock, and also how the pigs in categories 4 and 5 compare in their response to the electric shock.

In fact, I think serious consideration should be given to THIS design, rather than the 2-drug design that seems to have been the original plan.

Since the study using 10 pigs is to take two years, perhaps additional funding could be obtained during the next year to enable an enlargement of the study to include a second drug in a third year.

Here is another question: Are the drugged pigs to be given a non-lethal dose of the drug, or are they to be given an overdose? I don't think an overdose is called for in this kind of experiment.

Here is another question: Are the pigs going to be shocked once only, or will they be followed over time, so that each pig in an electric shock category is given repeated shocks, as was done in the study published in January 2005? I think useful information can be obtained if they are shocked repeatedly over a period of time, especially if the pigs that represent habitual drug users are followed throughout the period of withdrawal from the drug.

But it could also be useful to have data on drugged pigs given just one electric shock, and then followed as the drug leaves their body, because this could generate data that may be relevant to the issue of delayed death. If delayed death occurs in a category where the pigs got one electric shock, but no delayed death occurs in the pigs that were similarly drugged without receiving an electric shock, the data would suggest that the electric shock was associated with the delayed death. (Then, of course, the question will be raised whether there are enough animals in each category that such differences may be regarded as real, and not chance events!)

The experiment actually carried out should be one that not only generates highly useful data but also poses a fair test of Professor Webster's hypothesis. As suggested here, some redesign of Professor Webster's experiment seems to be in order.

That's all for now. - BH

Top Classified Ads (view all)

Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!

DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!

Place a classified ad

What's new in Muckrakers: