In a pivotal move, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) formally retracted its endorsement of a 2009 paper on “excited delirium” on Thursday, marking a significant shift in both medical terminology and the use of force by law enforcement. Critics have long argued that the term has been used to justify excessive force by police officers, particularly in cases involving individuals in custody.
The ACEP, a leading organization representing emergency medicine professionals, declared the 2009 paper outdated and explicitly stated that the term “excited delirium” should no longer be employed by its members when testifying in civil or criminal cases. This stance was established during a recent vote by the organization’s directors held in Philadelphia.
Dr. Brooks Walsh, an emergency physician from Connecticut, played a pivotal role in pushing ACEP to take this strong stance against the controversial term. He emphasized the critical implication of this decision, stating, “This means if someone dies while being restrained in custody … people can’t point to excited delirium as the reason and can’t point to ACEP’s endorsement of the concept to bolster their case.”
This bold move by ACEP follows a broader trend of reevaluation regarding the use of “excited delirium.” Earlier in the week, California became the first state to prohibit the use of “excited delirium” and related terms as a cause of death in autopsies. This legislation was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom and also forbids police officers from using the term in their reports to describe individuals’ behavior.
The National Association of Medical Examiners took a similar stance against “excited delirium” in March, asserting that it should not be listed as a cause of death in medical reports. These actions highlight a growing consensus among medical professionals regarding the problematic nature of the term.
Additionally, the American Medical Association, among other medical organizations, had previously rejected the use of “excited delirium” due to concerns about its reliability and potential misuse.
The implications of ACEP’s decision are far-reaching. The withdrawal of endorsement for “excited delirium” not only reflects a critical reevaluation of medical terminology but also raises questions about the use of force by law enforcement agencies. The controversial term had been used in cases where individuals in custody displayed agitated or erratic behavior, often leading to tragic outcomes.
By no longer permitting the use of “excited delirium” in civil or criminal cases, ACEP aims to prevent the term from being wielded as a defense for excessive use of force, thus seeking to improve accountability and transparency in law enforcement actions.
The move by ACEP aligns with the broader effort to promote accurate and accountable medical practices. It acknowledges that the use of “excited delirium” has faced significant scrutiny and criticism from both the medical community and the general public.
In conclusion, the American College of Emergency Physicians’ decision to withdraw its approval of the 2009 paper on “excited delirium” represents a pivotal shift in both medical terminology and the way the use of force by law enforcement is scrutinized. This decision, combined with legislative actions in California and the stance of other medical organizations, underscores the importance of accurate and responsible medical terminology in promoting justice and accountability.
