SB705 would prohibit the State of Hawaii from recognizing “excited delirium” as a valid medical diagnosis or cause of death. It directs local health officers and Department of Health agents not to document, testify to, or otherwise use the term in official communications, and bars them from listing it on death certificates or reports as the underlying cause of death. The bill allows officials to describe contributing causes and factual circumstances, but not to use excited delirium as the diagnosis or cause.
The bill also applies to law enforcement and civil litigation. Police officers would be barred from using excited delirium in incident reports, though they could still describe a person’s observed behavior and condition. In civil actions, evidence that a person suffered or experienced excited delirium would be inadmissible, and parties or witnesses could describe the facts without attributing them to that term. The bill defines excited delirium broadly to include related labels such as excited delirium syndrome, hyperactive delirium, agitated delirium, and exhaustive mania, while tying the definition to the absence of recognition in the DSM or insufficient scientific evidence.
Impact
SB705 would amend Hawaii law in three areas: vital statistics/public health reporting under chapter 338, law enforcement reporting under chapter 353C, and civil evidence rules under chapter 626. Its practical effect would be to eliminate the use of excited delirium as an official medical or forensic explanation in death certification and government reporting, and to prevent its use as a label in police incident reports and civil court proceedings. The bill would not prevent officials or litigants from describing observable symptoms or contributing factors; it would only prohibit the specific term from being used as a recognized diagnosis, cause of death, or evidentiary label.
Sentiment
The bill’s framing suggests a strong policy preference against the term excited delirium, reflecting skepticism about its scientific validity and concern about its use in official records. Although no committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, the bill text and report description indicate a clear, affirmative intent to restrict the term across public health, law enforcement, and court settings. The overall sentiment appears supportive of replacing the term with more specific factual descriptions and medically recognized explanations.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the scientific and legal status of excited delirium itself. Supporters would view the term as medically unsupported and potentially misleading in death investigations, police reports, and litigation, while opponents may argue that banning the term could limit the ability of medical examiners or officers to describe a real clinical or behavioral phenomenon. Another likely issue is the bill’s broad reach into evidentiary rules and official reporting, which could be seen as constraining professional judgment even though it preserves the ability to describe underlying facts and symptoms.
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.