A Comprehensive Review
of Frequently
Misinterpreted
and
Misrepresented
Restraint Research

CITATION:
Miller CD.
A comprehensive review of frequently misinterpreted and misrepresented restraint research.
Three parts, posted in February, March, & August, 2005.
http://www.charlydmiller.com/LIB05/2005chasresearchreview.html

ABSTRACT:
Misinterpretation and misrepresentation of research and review articles can have deadly consequences.
At this writing, the three most-frequently misinterpreted and misrepresented restraint-asphyxia-related
research and review articles are:

  1. Chan TC, Vilke GM, Neuman T, Clausen JL.
    Restraint position and positional asphyxia
    Ann Emerg Med, November 1997;30:578-586.
  2. Chan TC, Vilke GM, Neuman T.
    Reexamination of custody restraint position and positional asphyxia
    Am J Forensic Med Pathol, September 1998;19(3):201-205.
  3. Chan TC; Neuman T; Clausen J; Eisele J; Vilke GM.
    Weight force during prone restraint and respiratory function
    Am J Forensic Med Pathol, September 2004;25(3):185-189.
The primary purpose of this THREE-PART review is to thwart those who persist in misinterpreting and misrepresenting these articles by assisting others to understand their TRUE content . This is accomplished by providing accurate explanations of each article’s content; and by providing substantiated BACKGROUND INFORMATION relevant to the authors’ “motivation” for performing the studies and reviews that generated these articles: information not available to the majority of readers – information not even available to many professionals who subscribe to the journals that published these articles.

This review provides concrete support for the following FACTS:

  1. No one has ever performed a “clinical study” of the physical effects experienced by individuals who are subjected to forceful-prone-restraint (or hogtie restraint) during real-life situations.

  2. No one has ever performed a “clinical study” proving that no ill effects will occur when an individual is subjected to forceful-prone-restraint (or hogtie restraint) during real-life situations.

  3. Unbiased medical and forensic professionals universally agree that application of forceful-prone-restraint during real-life situations (with or without hogtie) is extremely dangerous, is accompanied by a very high risk of causing “wrongful death,” and should not be performed by emergency responders (or others).

  4. Those who persist in promoting misinterpretation or misrepresentation of restraint-asphyxia-related research and review articles are acting in a “morally and ethically indefensible” manner, and are demonstrating the strong likelihood that they have “personal agendas” inconsistent with a concern for preventing death.

  5. In fact, Theodore Chan et al have demonstrated incidents wherein he (they) LIED about information they published, in addition to having significantly MISREPRESENTED research regarding the subject of restraint asphyxia.

The Comprehensive Review DIRECTORY

NEW as of FEBRUARY, 2006:
A COLLECTION of Studies Performed By Anesthesiologists
Regarding the Effects of PRONE POSITIONING
On February 6, 2006, I discovered that “Anesthesiologists” have performed and published LOADS of clinical studies consistently documenting the following FACTS:

  1. If a BODY POSITION interferes with abdominal excursion, it interferes with breathing.
  2. PRONE positioning of unconscious, intubated and mechanically ventilated patients
    (with no WEIGHT on their backs!), interferes with abdominal excursion.
  3. When surgery requires PRONE positioning, special bolsters or apparatus must be employed
    to allow the abdomen to hang FREELY so as to avoid breathing interference.
Furthermore, Anesthesiologists proved these facts long before Reay et al began their research (1988)!
Most importantly; this study collection clearly and concretely demonstrates that
the “CHAN ET AL” studies are ENTIRELY WITHOUT MERIT!
The Anesthesiologists’ article collection was originally posted in February, 2006.
These articles are NOT MENTIONED in the 2005 COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW. But, they provide
additional SUPPORT for the Chan et al errors and misrepresentations identified therein.

NEW as of December, 2005:
A 39-page PDF FILE containing All 3 Parts (& the References) of
A Comprehensive Review of Frequently Misinterpreted
and Misrepresented Restraint Research
If you’re going to PRINT any part of this 3-part Comprehensive Review, print from the PDF file. Webpages end up printing weird (text next to photos bumps the photos to another page, and the like). Plus, printing from the webpages takes up a lot more paper than printing from the PDF file.


The “Webpage” Version: A Comprehensive Review of Frequently
Misinterpreted and Misrepresented Restraint Research; PART ONE
Chan TC, Vilke GM, Neuman T, Clausen JL.
Restraint position and positional asphyxia
Ann Emerg Med, November 1997;30:578-586.
Posted in February, 2005.


The “Webpage” Version: A Comprehensive Review of Frequently
Misinterpreted and Misrepresented Restraint Research; PART TWO
Chan TC, Vilke GM, Neuman T.
Reexamination of custody restraint position and positional asphyxia
Am J Forensic Med Pathol, September 1998;19(3):201-205.
Posted in March, 2005.


The “Webpage” Version: A Comprehensive Review of Frequently
Misinterpreted and Misrepresented Restraint Research; PART THREE
Chan TC; Neuman T; Clausen J; Eisele J; Vilke GM.
Weight force during prone restraint and respiratory function
Am J Forensic Med Pathol, September 2004;25(3):185-189.
FINALLY completed & posted on August 1st, 2005!


The “Webpage” Version: REFERENCES for ALL PARTS of:
A Comprehensive Review of Frequently Misinterpreted and
Misrepresented Restraint Research
FINAL DRAFT Posted in March, 2005.

The “Weight Force” Collection

PDF File Versions of Articles Related to PART THREE of this Review
Created and Posted in January, 2006:

Eisele JW, Chan TC, Vilke GM, Clausen J.
Comparison of Respiratory Function in the Prone Maximal Restraint
Position With and Without Additional Weight Force on the Back
The abstract of a PAPER presented at the annual meeting of the
American Academy of Forensic Science, in Reno, Nevada: February 21-26, 2000.

Chan TC, Clausen J, Neuman T, Eisele JW, Vilke GM.
Does Weight Force During Physical Restraint
Cause Respiratory Compromise?
The abstract of a PAPER presentation listed in the
Ann Emerg Med, ACEP Research Forum Supplement: pS17, October 2003;42(4).

Chan TC; Neuman T; Clausen J; Eisele J; Vilke GM.
Weight Force During Prone Restraint and Respiratory Function
Am J Forensic Med Pathol 25(3):185-189, September 2004.

Vilke GM, Michalewicz B, Kolkhorst FW, Neuman T, Chan TC. Does Weight Force
During Physical Restraint Cause Respiratory Compromise?
The abstract of a PAPER presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Society for
Academic Emergency Medicine Acad Emerg Med May 2005;12(5 Supplement 1) : page 16.

[The above “presentation paper” was finally published in JAN 2007.
To read CHAS’ Review of that Chan et al report (and obtain a link to its report PDF file), GO TO:
A Comprehensive Review of the January 2007 Chan et al ‘Aggressive Physical Restraint’
Study Report and Questions That Will ‘Defeat’ Those Who Cite It.]

USE YOUR BACK BUTTON
To Return To Wherever You Came From
OR Use the Following Links:

Return to the Restraint Asphyxia LIBRARY

Go to the Restraint Asphyxia Newz Directory

Go to CHAS’ HOME PAGE

Email Charly at: c-d-miller@neb.rr.com
(Those are hyphens/dashes between the “c” and “d” and “miller”)