Page 100 - Journal of Special Operations Medicine - Winter 2014

accidental or intentional shootings. Surprisingly, 69.6% This study compiles and compares causes of death for
(n = 16) of the friendly fire cases were intentional shoot- in-service working dogs in law enforcement. However,
ings. In these cases, the dog was aggressive or bit a law there are limitations to this study. The data presented in
enforcement officer and, in response, the officer inten- this study were compiled from online sources. The in-
tionally shot the dog out of fear for the officer’s own formation was collected and reported as a memorial to
safety. Six cases (26.1%) involved a dog that was caught the fallen canines. The causes of death were reported by
in the crossfire or was accidentally shot by a police of- handlers or other contributors affected by the death of
ficer. One case resulted from friendly fire, but the exact the dog. None of the cases could be verified with veteri-
circumstance was not clear. Cases that were categorized nary records; however, additional information could be
as hostile shootings that occurred off duty generally in- found if there was media coverage of the incident. There
volved a dog that escaped the kennel or home of the are no specifications as to where the canine units must
handler and was shot for a variety of reasons. seek veterinary care, making it difficult to access vet-
erinary records and verify causes of death. If veterinary
The implementation of civilian trauma systems or in- records or necropsy reports were available, additional
jury databases has been effective for improving care information such as breed, sex, age, and cause of death
delivered to injured patients, injury prevention, supply- could also be compiled and analyzed.
ing data for clinical research, documenting effects of
trauma, and policy development. 21–23 In the past, signifi- With the causes being reported by nonclinical personnel,
cant improvements in civilian trauma care have resulted it is possible the causes were not correctly understood or
from data and experiences in combat casualty care. On reported. Errors in reporting the cause correctly, and the
the contrary, applying civilian standards to military potential for certain types of causes not to be reported at
trauma care revealed significant medical differences in all, could result in inaccurately represented categories.
the 1990s, exposing deficiencies on the battlefield. 2,24 Furthermore, if the cause of death would carry addi-
Trauma registries not only help improve trauma out- tional scrutiny of the officer, when the death could be
comes but also improve advances in personal protective attributed to the officer’s actions or attention to care of
equipment and prehospital care standards. 2–4,6 the dog, then the handler may not contact the websites.
If the handler is unaware of the websites’ existence,
A study that investigated US Army Ranger combat ca- there is a potential for missing data points, as well.
sualties in Somalia noted the need for a comprehensive
combat-casualty registry allowing evidence-based vali- In conclusion, this study casts some light on the risks
dation of surgical and resuscitative intervention. The that civilian law enforcement dogs undergo as part of
24
Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR) was developed the tasks to which they are assigned. Additionally, it is
to better organize and coordinate battlefield care. One important to note that this report is not an accusation of
study analyzed the JTTR data from July 2003 through any aspect of law enforcement and the care of the dogs,
July 2008, comparing data to the civilian trauma- system but rather an attempt to identify areas in which knowl-
equivalent, the National Trauma Data Bank. As a re- edge and resources could be improved, subsequently
2
sult, the evidence-based guidelines put in place for a benefiting canine casualty care and reducing death from
military setting were associated with improvements in potentially survivable traumatic events. The databases
outcome for hypothermia prevention and management, from which these conclusions are drawn were never de-
burn resuscitation, and massive transfusion mortal- signed to yield high-quality epidemiologic conclusions;
ity. Following the inception of the JTTR, an additional these databases are, in general, set up as memorials to
study investigated the outcomes from implementing animals with whom their handlers have worked closely
prehospital trauma care guidelines customized for the and to whom many handlers owe their lives. They are,
battlefield (Tactical Combat Casualty Care) and a pre- at best, incomplete death records. However, given the
hospital trauma registry. Additional comparisons were immense expense incurred by local, state, and federal
3
made with casualty data from the regiment, which sup- governments in acquiring, training, and maintaining
ported and applied the guidelines to the military as a these highly skilled animals, it would seem advisable to
whole. It was reported that the 75th Ranger Regiment establish a wider database, taken across governmental
had a decrease in cases identified as KIA and died of levels and including living (working and retired) and
wounds when compared with the US military ground deceased animals, to determine more rigorously than is
troops. Continually improving and implementing guide- currently possible the full extent of the risk profile to
lines for battlefield trauma care will continue to lower which these animals are subjected. As more, subtle epi-
casualty rates. A comprehensive working dog database demiologic patterns become clearer, it may be possible
could be used in a similar manner to potentially lower to alter selection, training, and deployment strategies to
fatality rates, as demonstrated by the human population. maintain this valuable resource more efficiently.

90 Journal of Special Operations Medicine Volume 14, Edition 4/Winter 2014