March 29, 2005
News Release
Arlington, VA – The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies has completed a study on the safety and efficacy of stun devices. The report concludes that while increased medical testing should continue, and federal guidelines for manufacturers and end users should be put into place, when used appropriately, stun technology is relatively safe and clearly effective.
A conference at Potomac Institute in February analyzed current issues related to stun devices. Sponsored by the Institute and Aegis Industries, Inc., the conference brought together experts in medical, industry, policy, military, and law enforcement fields. The independent study is based on information gathered from the conference and additional sources.
Report Findings:
- Overall, currently available information supports the view that when used appropriately stun technology is relatively safe. However, the Potomac Institute strongly recommends that additional research be conducted at the organism, organ, tissue, and cell levels. The community needs to better understand the specific effects of varying electrical wave forms on organic matter in the immediate time frame of stun application, and in the downstream time course as well, to include possible psychiatric and other non-lethal effects.
- The Potomac Institute adopted the FDA philosophy to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of stun devices. The FDA model considers the risks associated with a device relative to its efficacy, and considers no product to be completely free of risk.
- The last, and only, federal level regulatory type review of stun device safety was conducted in 1976, by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The available technology at that time was found not likely to cause death in normally healthy adults.
- Odds for stunning to contribute to (this does not imply “cause”) death are, at worst, one in one thousand. The ratio of lives saved to lives lost exceeds 70:1. By comparison, the similar ratio for air bags in automobiles is approximately 50:1.
- Upon examining the 72 mortality cases appearing in the Amnesty International 2004 report on stun device use, in no instance was stun employment implicated singularly as the cause of death, although the application of stun devices could not be ruled out as a possible contributing factor. These cases showed that other contributing factors, including pre-existing morbidity (such as heart disease), excessive drug ingestion, and multiple force applications (baton, wrestling, stunning) could have also led to the deaths.
- Available animal modeling conducted by a government laboratory offers indirect evidence of the relative safety of currently available stun devices.
- There are no industry standards, regulatory agencies, or federal restrictions or guidelines, for stun devices. The Potomac Institute recommends establishing government-endorsed standards that will contribute significantly to better understanding of this technology domain.
- Although some law enforcement organizations offer exemplary use of force rules, there is no agreed upon point for placement of stun devices on a use of force continuum.
- The report shows that there is no universally accepted terminology or definition for non-lethal weapons within the stun device industry or among users of the technology. The Potomac Institute suggests the adoption of the Department of Defense definition for non-lethal technology, which focuses on the intent of the technology and not the outcome of the use of the device.
- Direct evidence of safety can be drawn from law enforcement agency reports, which provide statistics on situational use and employment results
- Indirect evidence of efficacy of stun devices can be determined from the increased acquisition of stun devices by law enforcement agencies. Some organizations other than law enforcement agencies have actively voiced support for stun device use as a non-lethal force option.
To download a full copy of the Potomac Institute’s report Efficacy and Safety of Electrical Stun Devices, visit our website, www.PotomacInstitute.org and look on our homepage or report page to find the study.
Click here to link directly to the study |
