Relating To Excited Delirium.
This legislation would amend existing sections of the Hawaii Revised Statutes to prevent law enforcement officers from using the term excited delirium in their incident reports. Furthermore, it establishes a new rule under Hawaii's Rules of Evidence that would render any evidence or mention of excited delirium inadmissible in civil actions. This change indicates a significant shift in the state's approach to reporting and evaluating instances where individuals display extreme agitation and aggression, often in the context of police encounters.
House Bill 36, relating to excited delirium, specifically seeks to prohibit the recognition of excited delirium as a valid medical diagnosis or cause of death within the state of Hawaii. Under this bill, medical examiners, coroners, and health care providers are explicitly instructed not to use or document excited delirium in any official capacity, thereby eliminating it from death certificates and medical reports. The bill aims to clarify the legal and medical framework surrounding the diagnosis, which has been contentious and debated in recent years, particularly in relation to cases involving law enforcement actions and fatal encounters.
The sentiment surrounding HB 36 appears to be divided. Supporters of the bill might argue that this measure protects the integrity of medical practices and addresses a diagnosis that lacks sufficient scientific validation. However, critics may express concern that excluding excited delirium from official discussions could undermine necessary medical evaluations and limit accountability in policing practices. The debate is likely rooted in broader discussions regarding mental health, medical ethics, and public safety.
Key points of contention include the implications for police accountability and the appropriate handling of individuals exhibiting severe mental health crises. Many advocates for mental health reforms argue that recognizing excited delirium may aid in understanding and managing encounters with individuals in crisis. Conversely, proponents of the bill may contend that excited delirium has been improperly used to absolve law enforcement actions in confrontational situations, leading to fatalities without proper medical justification.