Every so often media attention shifts to a particular topic that galvanizes public opinion, either because of its importance to society, or just as often because the sensational elements of the story guarantee increased viewers or subscribers or advertising dollars for the media outlet. One such issue is the use of the Taser and other Conductive Energy Devices (CED) by law enforcement agencies in Canada and abroad.

The TASER® X26 is manufactured by TASER International and is the most commonly used CED in law enforcement, but not the only one. Stinger™ Systems manufactures the S-200. While it isn’t found as commonly in the arsenals of law enforcement agencies, it is out there. The two manufacturers take a slightly different approach on two key areas: the propellant system and the delivery of the electrical current.

The Taser X26 delivers its probes to target with compressed nitrogen. The Stinger S-200 cartridges are fired by a primer, which when activated through combustive pressure, forces the probes to deploy. Because of this feature, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) classifies the S-200 as a firearm, with somewhat unique legal implications.

The other area where the two manufacturers have divergent designs is in the energy waveform itself. While I won’t go into the pages of technical specifications and arguments here (they are available online by doing a Google search), suffice to say that each manufacturer claims their stun gun’s waveform is better, with Stinger claiming its unique “Smart Waveform” provides “enhanced intrinsic cardiac safety.” It is unclear whether that claim is true in actual practice, but no doubt there will be more studies by both manufacturers, and hopefully by independent researchers, to try to prove or dispel any such claims.

Just as Xerox became synonymous with making a photocopy and Kleenex became the word representative of all facial tissue, Taser has over time evolved to mean any type of CED, as well as the act of using a CED. “Man is tasered to death” is an easy headline to understand. While the veracity of the statement may be in question, everybody understands the inference. So regardless of the prevalence of Stingers and Tasers it will be Taser® International’s CED we think of when anyone mentions that someone was tased.

Each time someone dies during a confrontation with police, or while in custody, questions need to be asked. That is the nature of the country we live in. We don’t live in a police state, we live in a democracy and in a democracy police are accountable. But just as the police are accountable, so to is the media tasked with the responsibility of providing accurate, unbiased reporting. Or if not unbiased, then their reporting should at least not be fallacious out of ignorance or a desire to grab headlines. As an observer of the media at large I cannot honestly say that the media stands up to this simple litmus test. When it comes to police use of the Taser, they are guilty of promoting misinformation much of the time. I do not believe that this is done out of malice; I just think many reporters lack the background knowledge, inquisitiveness and time required to report a properly researched story in this subject area. More often, they fall victim to the worst form of reasoning, advocating the flawed “after this, therefore because of this” assumption. It is a grand form of the non-sequitur, like “Bill lives in a large building; therefore his apartment must be big.” Worse, they do not understand the relationship between causation and correlation. When reporting on the death of a person, one better understand that difference.

Consider this: John puts on a raincoat. John steps outside. It starts to rain. Did it start to rain because John put on his raincoat? Because he stepped outside? Most reporters would not make that error in reasoning, or jump to such disjointed conclusions, yet time after time we read how “a man died after being tasered by police.” While such a brief quotation is simplistic and challenges the reader to make up his or her own mind about the causative circumstances, far too often we are led to believe that in fact the one caused the other, either because of a paucity of facts or a poorly presented series of them. One need look no further than the case of Robert Dziekanski, the Polish immigrant who died shortly after being subdued with a Taser at Vancouver International Airport, to see how polarizing the Taser issue has become. A CTV.ca website story states, “CTV has obtained new details that shed light on the minutes and hours leading up to the taser death of a man at Vancouver International Airport.” And a photo caption of Dziekanski reads, “Taser victim Robert Dziekanski, of Pieszyce, Poland, had flown to B.C. to start a new life as a Canadian.” Such characterizations hardly serve the public’s best interest.

As paramedics we are a subset of the general public. While off duty, we have a right and an obligation to remain informed and to form an opinion and arguably to get involved in issues we believe in. We enjoy no such luxury at work. Our responsibilities while on the job are to respond quickly and to provide care in a non-judgmental and unbiased fashion. So, how do we deal with these issues while at work?

Be informed. There are several conditions that have been identified over the years as contributing to the deaths of individuals while in police custody or during restraint in the field. Excited delirium has been postulated to be the causative link in the majority of cases of post Taser deaths. Yet it, too, has come under intense scrutiny as critics within the media and in other public circles decry this as some police-invented buzz word meant only to divert focus away from police actions. In my opinion, this is not the case.

Ultimately, it makes little difference to us as paramedics what propellant system is used or what the waveform of the electrical energy generated by each weapon looks like. Frankly, the use of a Taser, Stinger, or other stun gun is immaterial to our practice as paramedics. Our focus will be as it has always been—to treat the presenting signs and symptoms, as well as the underlying cause, of our patient’s medical condition.

In the next issue (August-September 2008) of Canadian Emergency News I will discuss in greater depth the topic of sudden, unexpected death in the field following contact with the police. In a bit of a departure from my regular column, we will explore in detail the phenomenon called excited delirium that is at the centre of so much controversy.