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.
A00697 would prohibit the use of “excited delirium” as a diagnosis, label, cause of death, or contributing factor in several official contexts. The bill amends the Public Health Law to bar death certificates from citing excited delirium, amends the County Law to bar autopsy reports and other examinations from using it as a cause or manner of death, and amends the Executive Law to prohibit law enforcement reports, actions, and training materials from relying on the term. It also amends the State Finance Law to prevent public agencies and their contractors from adopting policies, procedures, trainings, or materials that recognize excited delirium as a valid diagnosis or cause of death.
The bill defines “excited delirium” broadly to include related terms 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 or diagnostic criteria. It takes effect immediately and would apply across public health, forensic, law enforcement, and state contracting contexts.
Its impact on state law would be to remove excited delirium from official state and local documentation and from government and contractor training or policy use. That would affect medical examiners, coroners, county autopsy processes, police departments, peace officers, state agencies, municipalities, and contractors working for public agencies, especially in cases involving in-custody deaths, restraint incidents, or behavioral health encounters.
The general sentiment reflected in committee action appears favorable overall, as the bill advanced through the Assembly Health, Codes, and Rules Committees with majority support at each stage. The votes also show meaningful opposition, suggesting the measure is supported by a majority but not unanimously. No transcript discussion was provided, so the available record does not show detailed floor or committee arguments.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s categorical rejection of a term that some medical or law enforcement personnel may have used in practice to describe acute behavioral crises. Supporters appear to view the term as scientifically unsupported and potentially harmful in official death investigations and policing, while opponents may be concerned about limiting professional discretion, changing established reporting practices, or affecting training and incident response protocols.
The bill would amend the Public Health Law, County Law, Executive Law, and State Finance Law to prohibit official use of “excited delirium” in death certificates, autopsy reports, law enforcement reports, public agency policies, and contractor trainings/materials. It would directly affect medical examiners, county coroners, police and peace officers, public agencies, and government contractors by removing the term from official state-recognized documentation and procedures.
The available voting history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, with it advancing through three Assembly committees by majority votes. The margins indicate support is not unanimous, but the measure has clear committee momentum. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no additional recorded debate to indicate broader public or member sentiment beyond the votes.
The likely controversy centers on whether “excited delirium” should be treated as a legitimate medical or forensic concept. Supporters of the bill appear to argue that the term lacks sufficient scientific basis and should not be used in official records or training, while opponents may object to prohibiting a term some law enforcement or medical professionals have used to describe severe agitation or crisis behavior. The bill also reaches beyond death certification into police reporting, agency policy, and contractor training, which could raise concerns about implementation and professional autonomy.