If enacted, this bill will amend several sections of the Colorado Revised Statutes to eliminate the term 'excited delirium' from training courses for peace officers and emergency medical service providers. It will prohibit the use of the term in incident reports, which could lead to a significant change in how certain behaviors and conditions are documented in police reports and health assessments. This move is aimed at reducing the misuse of the term in high-stakes situations, following concerns raised over its validity and implications in various legal and social contexts.
Summary
House Bill 1103 seeks to prohibit the official use of the term 'excited delirium' by law enforcement and emergency responders during training and incident reporting. The bill defines 'excited delirium' as a condition characterized by symptoms such as extreme aggression and apparent immunity to pain, but it also excludes references to this term in official training protocols. The bill emphasizes the importance of safe interactions with individuals exhibiting altered mental states, ensuring that training focuses on symptoms rather than specific terminologies that may carry controversial implications.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 1103 appears to be mixed, with proponents advocating for its potential to change the narrative regarding the treatment of individuals in crisis. Supporters argue that removing 'excited delirium' from official terminology could lead to more compassionate and context-sensitive interactions during emergencies. However, there are concerns among some law enforcement and medical professionals that eliminating the term could hinder the ability to accurately communicate about certain critical situations, which might complicate training and incident reporting processes.
Contention
Controversy surrounding the bill revolves around the interpretation of 'excited delirium' and its alleged effects on mortality rates during police encounters. Advocates for the ban cite the term's association with racial bias and wrongful deaths, emphasizing a need for more humane and scientifically-grounded approaches to describe individuals exhibiting severe agitation or distress. Opponents, however, argue that the term has been used to explain genuine medical emergencies and should remain as part of training to ensure officers are prepared to deal with dangerous situations effectively.
Prohibits the use of the term "excited delirium" as a diagnosis, label, or cause of death on death certificates, autopsy reports, police reports or any report, policy or procedure by a public agency or contractor; defines excited delirium.
Prohibits the use of the term "excited delirium" as a diagnosis, label, or cause of death on death certificates, autopsy reports, police reports or any report, policy or procedure by a public agency or contractor; defines excited delirium.
Finding That "excited Delirium" And "excited Delirium Syndrome" Are Not Medical Diagnoses Recognized By Any Leading Medical Or Other Scientific Organization And Requesting All State And County Government Entities To Refrain From Indicating "excited Delirium" Or "excited Delirium Syndrome" As A Cause Of Death.
Finding That "excited Delirium" And "excited Delirium Syndrome" Are Not Medical Diagnoses Recognized By Any Leading Medical Or Other Scientific Organization And Requesting All State And County Government Entities To Refrain From Indicating "excited Delirium" Or "excited Delirium Syndrome" As A Cause Of Death.
Urging The Prohibition Of The Use Of "excited Delirium", Or Similar Pseudoscientific Concepts, As A Medical Diagnosis, Cause Of Death, Or Legal Theory In The State Of Hawaii.
Finding That "excited Delirium" And "excited Delirium Syndrome" Are Not Medical Diagnoses Recognized By Any Leading Medical Or Other Scientific Organization And Requesting All State And County Government Entities To Refrain From Indicating "excited Delirium" Or "excited Delirium Syndrome" As A Cause Of Death.