In recent times, the controversial term "excited delirium" has come under scrutiny, particularly in relation to law enforcement agencies. This term has been frequently used to justify and explain the deaths of individuals in police custody. However, many experts argue that this term lacks scientific validity and is often used to absolve officers of accountability in instances of excessive force.
The case of Daniel Prude, a Black man who died in police custody in New York, brought this issue to the fore. Prude's death was attributed to "excited delirium" and "acute PCP intoxication" according to an autopsy report. However, this explanation was met with widespread scepticism and criticism, sparking a broader debate about the validity of "excited delirium" as a cause of death.
Many medical professionals and human rights advocates argue that the term is not only scientifically unproven but also disproportionately applied to Black people, further fuelling systemic racism. These critics maintain that "excited delirium" has become a convenient scapegoat for police misconduct and inappropriate use of force.
Despite these concerns, the term continues to be used by law enforcement and in some medical contexts. For instance, the American College of Emergency Physicians recognizes "excited delirium" as a condition, even though it is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the International Classification of Diseases.
Moreover, the frequent correlation between "excited delirium" and drug use is a point of contention. Critics argue that drugs are often used as an excuse to justify excessive police force, despite the fact that many people who use drugs do not exhibit violent behavior.
In conclusion, the use of the term "excited delirium" in cases like Daniel Prude's is widely disputed and raises serious questions about its legitimacy. It is crucial for this issue to be thoroughly examined to ensure justice, accountability, and an end to systemic biases in law enforcement.