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 use the term in official communications, testimony, death certificates, or reports, while still allowing them to describe the contributing causes of death. The bill defines excited delirium broadly to include related terms such as excited delirium syndrome, hyperactive delirium, agitated delirium, and exhaustive mania.
The bill also bars law enforcement officers from using the term in incident reports. Officers may still describe a person’s conduct and condition in factual terms, but may not characterize the person as having excited delirium. In addition, SB705 creates a new rule of evidence for civil cases that makes evidence that a person suffered or experienced excited delirium inadmissible, while still permitting witnesses and parties to describe the underlying facts and observed behavior.
Impact
SB705 would amend Hawaii law in three areas: vital statistics/public health records, law enforcement reporting, and civil evidence rules. It would add a new section to Chapter 338 governing causes of death, a new section to Chapter 353C governing police incident reports, and a new rule to Chapter 626-1 excluding excited delirium evidence in civil actions. The practical effect is to prevent state and local officials from using the term as a formal medical or forensic explanation, while preserving the ability to document observable symptoms and contributing factors.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available legislative context, the measure appears to be framed as a corrective or restrictive policy aimed at limiting use of a contested term rather than expanding government authority. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the materials. The referral to HHS/PSM and JDC suggests the bill touches both health/public safety and legal issues, which may attract interest from multiple committees.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s rejection of “excited delirium” as a recognized diagnosis or cause of death, which could be viewed by supporters as preventing unsupported medical labeling and by critics as limiting terminology used by law enforcement or medical examiners. Another likely issue is the evidentiary ban in civil cases, because it could affect litigation involving in-custody deaths, use-of-force claims, or medical causation disputes. The bill tries to address these concerns by allowing factual descriptions of behavior and contributing causes while prohibiting the specific label.