SB228 prohibits the State of Hawaii from recognizing “excited delirium” as a valid medical diagnosis or cause of death. It bars medical examiners, coroners, health care providers, and state or county government personnel from documenting, testifying to, or otherwise using the term in official capacities, including on death certificates and reports. The bill also directs law enforcement officers not to use the term in incident reports, while still allowing them to describe a person’s observed conduct and condition in factual terms.
The bill further amends Hawaii’s rules of evidence to make evidence that a person suffered or experienced excited delirium inadmissible in civil actions. Parties and witnesses may still describe the surrounding facts, but may not characterize those facts as excited delirium or attribute the condition to that term. The measure also changes the title of Chapter 327C to “Medical Diagnosis; Death” and is set to take effect on July 1, 3000, a delayed effective date that functions as a placeholder rather than an immediate implementation date.
Impact
SB228 would change Hawaii law by expressly prohibiting the use of “excited delirium” in medical, death-investigation, law-enforcement, and civil-litigation contexts. It affects chapter 327C of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, chapter 353C governing incident reports, and section 626-1 of the Hawaii Rules of Evidence. The practical effect is to limit official reliance on the term in death certification, investigative reporting, and courtroom testimony, while preserving the ability to describe the underlying facts and symptoms without using the label.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests generally favorable committee sentiment toward the bill. It passed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee unanimously, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously, and passed the Senate Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs Committee with one dissenting vote. The lack of committee transcripts limits insight into detailed debate, but the amendment history and committee approvals indicate the measure had broad support overall, with some limited opposition or concern in the public safety committee.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the bill’s restriction on terminology used by law enforcement and medical professionals, especially in contexts involving in-custody deaths, behavioral crises, and forensic conclusions. Supporters likely view the term as scientifically unsupported and potentially misleading, while opponents may be concerned that banning the term could constrain professional judgment, reporting practices, or evidentiary presentation. The one no vote in the public safety committee suggests at least some concern from that policy area, though the bill still advanced with amendments.
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.
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.