Deaths occurring during and/or in close proximity to physical restraint have been attributed to positional asphyxia, a conclusion primarily based on opinion and reviews of case studies. This review sought to identify the current scientific evidence available in regard to the aetiology of adverse events or death occurring during or in close proximity to physical restraint. A systematic search of electronic databases (SPORTDiscus, AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) for papers published in English, between 1980 and 2011, using keywords that related to restraint, restraint position and cardiovascular function resulted in 11 experimental papers being found for review. The term positional asphyxia as a mechanism for sudden death is poorly understood. The literature shows that restraint position has the ability to impede life-maintaining physiological functions, but that the imposed impediment is not uniform across all restraint positions/techniques. Further research is required to ascertain the risks posed by struggling during restraint for more prolonged periods of time and in different positions using varied techniques of restraint. This research should seek to and rank known or future risk factors of adverse events occurring during restraint, seeking to understand the interactions and if present the cumulative effect of these risk factors. Finally, future research should focus on populations other than apparently healthy male adults.

No abstract

No abstract

Deaths occurring during and/or in close proximity to physical restraint have been attributed to positional asphyxia. This study investigated the physiological impact of three recognized prone-restraint positions with participants remaining passive. Position 3 (P3) the supported prone position (SPP) was designed to reduce the extent of pressure on the anterior chest wall (PAC) by bringing the upper limbs underneath the shoulder joint whereas for the other two positions (P1 and P2) the arms were abducted from the torso. Twenty-five adults participated. Forced vital capacity (FVC), expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), heart rate (HR) and oxygen saturations (SpO2) were taken three times in an upright seated position (baseline) and in each prone position. Mean PAC was measured at 102.6 (±24.3) and 101.4 (±24.4) mmHg for P1 and P2, respectively; however, in the SPP (P3) the mean PAC pressure reduced to 72.7 (±16.9) mmHg. All three prone-restraint positions reduced FVC and FEV1 compared with baseline (P < 0.001). P1 and P2 where the arms were abducted reduced respiratory measures equally but differed from the SPP position (P < 0.001) where PAC was significantly lower. Reductions in FVC from baseline were 16% for P1 and P2, and 11% for the SPP (P3) where PAC was ∼28% lower than in P1 and P2. Reductions in FEV1 were similar in all three prone-restraint positions and HR and SpO2 were unaffected. In summary, all prone-restraint positions restrict respiratory function but the risk associated with the position reduces as the PAC reduces.

We compare two institutions head on, a family compact -a parent makes a transfer to her parent in anticipation of a possible future gift from her children -with a pay-as-you-go, social security system in a lifecycle model with endogenous fertility wherein children are valued both as consumption and investment goods. Our focus is strictly on the pension dimension of these competing institutions. We show that an optimally-chosen family compact and a social security system cannot co-exist; indeed, the former may be preferred. A strong-enough negative shock to middle-age incomes destroys family compacts. While such a setting might appear ideal for the introduction of a social security system -as the experience of Europe, circa 1880s, would suggest -this turns out not to be the case: if incomes are too depressed to allow family compacts to flourish, they are also too low to permit introduction of an optimal social security system.