Controversy Surrounds Use of "Excited Delirium" in Deaths Involving Police Restraint

The term "excited delirium," often cited by first responders in cases of deaths during police encounters, has come under fire from medical professionals and human rights advocates. Joanna Naples-Mitchell, a research advisor for Physicians for Human Rights, emphasized that no major U.S. medical association supports the term, labeling it "scientifically meaningless." She urged that it should be abandoned by medical examiners, coroners, and law enforcement, particularly in cases like that of D’Vontaye Mitchell, who died after being restrained by hotel workers. In the report concerning Mitchell's death, the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's investigator noted behaviors that were described as possibly indicative of excited delirium. However, the term has been criticized for being a catch-all explanation for deaths linked to law enforcement, particularly among young Black men. The National Association of Medical Examiners does not endorse the term, although it acknowledges its historical use in forensic pathology. Critics argue that the term has been debunked and does not accurately reflect the circumstances surrounding Mitchell's death. His family’s lawyer pointed out that there is no evidence supporting the diagnosis of excited delirium in this case. Furthermore, the term has been ingrained in police training, complicating its implications in legal contexts. Dr. Michele Heisler, a medical director at Physicians for Human Rights, reiterated that excited delirium is not a valid medical condition. The American College of Emergency Physicians has also distanced itself from the term, marking a significant shift in its acceptance within the medical community.