We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The work of codification of civil and commercial law, which began in 1908 under the direction of French draftsmen, produced the desired result in 1925 only after Phraya Manavarajasevi (Plod na Songkhla) became involved. Plod was instrumental in replacing the French Civil Code of 1804 with the German Civil Code of 1900 (“BGB”) as the principal model and introducing the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 (“JCC”) and a copying method which he referred to as the ‘Japanese method’ to the new Thai-dominated drafting committee. The JCC and the ‘Japanese method’ were chosen owing to Plod’s conviction that the Japanese had established their civil code by copying the BGB. In reality, the JCC was influenced by a variety of foreign laws, including German and French law. The drafting committee’s lack of knowledge about the rules and concepts they borrowed and the method they adopted led to difficulties in interpreting the rules and concepts in question. This chapter will explore Plod’s fundamental misconception in the drafting of the TCCC and its consequences with a particular focus on the principle of fault in breach of contract.
According to US military data, airway obstruction is the third leading cause of possibly preventable death in combat. In the absence of law enforcement-specific medical training, military experience has been translated to the law enforcement sector. The purpose of this study was to determine whether airway obstruction represents a significant cause of possibly preventable death in police officers, and whether current military combat lifesaver training programs might have prevented these fatalities.
Methods
De-identified, open-source US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) data for the years 1998-2007 were reviewed. Cases were included if officers were on duty at the time of fatal injury and died within one hour from time of wounding from penetrating face or neck trauma. After case identification, letters requesting autopsy reports were sent to the departments of victim officers. Reports were abstracted into a Microsoft Excel database.
Results
During the study period, 42 of 533 victim officers met inclusion criteria. Departmental response rate was 85.7%. Autopsy reports were provided for 29 officers; 23 (54.8%) cases remained in the final analysis. All officers died from gunshot wounds. No coroner specifically identified airway obstruction as either a direct cause of death or contributing factor. Based upon autopsy findings, three of 341 officers possibly succumbed to airway trauma (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.0%-1.9%). Endotracheal intubation was the most common advanced airway management technique utilized during attempted resuscitation.
Conclusion
The limited LEOKA data suggests that acute airway obstruction secondary to penetrating trauma appears to be a rare cause of possibly preventable death in police officers. Based upon the nature of airway trauma, nasopharyngeal airways would not be expected to be an effective lifesaving intervention. This study highlights the requirement for a comprehensive mortality and “near miss” database for law enforcement officers.
FisherL, CallawayD, SztajnkrycerM. Incidence of Fatal Airway Obstruction in Police Officers Feloniously Killed in the Line of Duty: A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis. Prehosp Disaster Med.2013;28(5):1-5.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.