An underage patient with autism and a heart condition was tasered by a security guard at M Health Fairview University of Minnesota last May. The boy was in the pediatric emergency department for suicidal thoughts when the incident happened. This isn’t a unique case - it's part of a bigger practice by hospitals arming their staff with weapons that are increasingly being used on vulnerable patients during mental health crises. Experts are concerned about both the use of these weapons and the security staff authorized to carry them.

Many hospitals across America arming their security staff with non-lethal weapons such as tasers, pepper spray, and handcuffs. Hospitals claim these measures are necessary to protect healthcare workers, who are under the danger of workplace violence. However, experts on mental health and psychiatric associations worry that the presence of such weapons in hospitals will cause more harm to patients.

At M Health Fairview University of Minnesota, state inspectors discovered six incidents in early 2024 where security used non-lethal weapons on patients experiencing mental health crises. Several cases involved children, and some patients ended up getting minor injuries.

The hospital, which claims to "deliver quality care with compassion" on its website, allowed security to repeatedly use tasers and pepper spray on mentally ill patients until state inspectors arrived in May.

In interviews with inspectors, a security supervisor stated that weapons could be used on patients that are making verbal threats. The regional security manager added that weapon use "is dependent on the scenario and the security staff's judgment."

According to Jim Blando, a researcher at the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, it is not always the case. “The problem that we started to observe is that a lot of times when hospitals hired a security person to be somebody with a law enforcement background, they wouldn't really have any idea about anything technical related to health and safety, but they would have that law enforcement background. And they have a very different approach and what often happens is they'll end up escalating the situation.”

The problem extends far beyond Minnesota. Phelps Health in Rolla, Missouri was placed under Immediate Jeopardy status, a term used in healthcare to describe a situation where a patient’s health, safety, or life is in immediate danger due to a facility's failing to meet federal standards. Phelps Health was in Immediate Jeopardy status twice in 2023 for unnecessarily using tasers on mental health patients. In one case, security tasered a patient experiencing psychosis. In another, they tasered and handcuffed a patient with schizophrenia during a mental health crisis.

Other hospitals with reported incidents in past years include Uniontown Hospital, UC San Diego Health, Mercy Hospital, Abington Hospital, Foothills Hospital among others.

“One of the background issues, I think, is the stigma around mental illness. There's a tendency to assume people in mental health crisis are dangerous. For someone with a military background, that's their frame of reference - that's how they assess risk and danger. But applying that mindset in a clinical setting isn’t appropriate. Combine that with the belief that Tasers are safe, non-traumatic tools for managing agitation, and it's easy to see how their use can quickly escalate,” says Dr. Anthony O’Brien, a mental health nurse and an Associate Professor at the University and Waikato.

Security training is the big issue, according to both inspection documents and experts' reviews. "Training is lacking, partly because Tasers were seen as non-lethal. It was often just, ‘Here’s your Taser, read the instructions.’ Proper training was rare or completely absent, which was a serious problem,” says Blando.

At Phelps Health, inspectors discovered security officers had only completed online training instead of the required hands-on component. According to the inspection report, "Staff had only completed the online training, so they were not certified."

The American Psychiatric Association has stated clearly that "clinical staff are not trained to decide when weapons should be used, and weapons do not have a role in clinical patient care, especially when that care involves restraint or seclusion of a patient."

Despite numerous incidents, there is little evidence of hospitals taking responsibility for such violence. Such pictures show that there is a little connection between hospital policies and actual practices when handling vulnerable patients in crisis.

“As soon as you give the police something like a Taser or a gun, they're going to use it. They're not going to say, ‘We don’t want to do that.’ Maybe with guns, they'll be a bit more cautious. But the Taser, because of its reputation as being safe, or perceived as safe, they're going to use it. And there are many cases where Tasers have been used, but gaining control still didn’t work,” says Dr. O’Brien.

There are cases where tasers resulted in fatalities. One of the cases, for example, where a police officer fatally shocked a 95-year-old woman with a Taser in an Australian nursing home. It causes more concerns for patients safety, as experts claim the experience of being shocked “is traumatic for patients with mental health conditions”.

As hospitals balance staff safety with patient care, the question rises: Are weapons really the answer to protecting healthcare workers, or are they creating more harm than good for the patients they're meant to help?