[ve55]

Excited delirium is a very well-known and documented phenomenon, primarily in individuals that are on excessive doses of stimulants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_delirium#Cause

However, nothing about its existence implies anything about police brutality. For some reason the article thinks it needs to deny the existence of something that obviously exists in order to argue against police brutality. This is a strange logical fallacy to commit, because you can easily argue brutality is bad regardless of what substances an individual is on.

Responding to child comments, it's possible that this condition is not unique enough to require its own name and label. But in that case, one can simply refer to the effects of doses of the given stimulants themselves, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#Adverse_effect....

Please note I'm not making any claim that brutality is okay or ever justified, just that there obviously does exist strong psychological and physical conditions that occur when an individual is on doses of very strong stimulants.

[triceratops]

From the Wikipedia article you linked: "The condition is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association or the World Health Organization." It's under the section titled "Controversy_related_to_policing_techniques".[1]

Just because something is well-known and documented doesn't mean it's recognized as a medical or psychological condition. Sometimes it can be that medicine hasn't caught up, and sometimes it's BS.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_delirium#Controversy_r...

[Simulacra]

It is curious that the section you identified was added June 17th, 2020.

[Volundr]

That... doesn't appear to be true. It's Wikipedia, the whole history is available. Heres the page as of early/mid April: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excited_delirium&..., which as far back as I've bothered to go, and the cited paragraph is still there.

[drdeca]

in addition, here is the link for covering all changes on June 17, which shows that the section is question was not created or renamed on June 17, though it was substantially modified on that day : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Excited_delirium&...

I don't know why it being substantially modified on that day would be important. Is there some significance to that date that I'm unaware of, other than it being "1 month ago today"?

[whymauri]

The world and its policies exist before they are documented on Wikipedia. What is your point?

[newacct583]

That date is just when the wikipedia sentence was written, probably becuase it tracks with exactly this controversy about police violence. The facts its cites about support within the medical community certainly aren't new.

I don't know why this seems so surprising to some here. The police use loopholes like everyone else does. If this gets them off the hook for borderline use of violence, of course they'll use it. If it's used inappropriately, they should stop.

[novia]

Why? It's July.

[ve55]

Yes, it is controversial for being used as a justification for police brutality and having been involved in a lot of bad incidents. But the existence of it is not controversial, as it is basically a subset of affects of substances such as methamphetamine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#Adverse_effect.... Does it need its own specific name and label? perhaps not, and that is part of why some organizations have not officially recognized it

[NotSammyHagar]

It's not accepted as a standard treatment, that's the key. The second key point is it's used as an excuse for violence. Same thing with pray gay away type treatments to convince men they aren't gay. Those are now illegal in many states.

Similar things, bogus classes on checking if you are high - like your eyes move in a certain way, or when driving your tire touches the white line. Cops take these classes and use them for justification. See also, pulling drivers over if they are certain minorities (driving suspiciously).

[cat199]

there is already amphetamine psychosis, etc.

i think the issue is inventing some quasi-illness which might really be one or several other things, but conveniently describes the exact set of symptoms that can be used to justify use of force (so basically it's a way to dress up 'he was acting crazy' and sound legitimate by calling it an 'illness' when you over react)

[ve55]

Yes, that would have made for a much better article+title I think. They would also make a better case by mentioning cases where the substances involved do not have such effects (for example, weed) rather than methamphetamine. But with such a poor clickbait title it's too much to expect.

[jokowueu]

The thing is that there are similar substances that are not in the amphetamine class that cause similar effects . Example would be the less common experiences some people get with PCP

[triceratops]

Ok...but that implies these cops may be doing coke and meth on the job, since the article says that those drugs "commonly cause" it. Surely that's an even bigger problem than "excited delirium".

EDIT: I'm an idiot.

[ve55]

I think you've misunderstood, excited delirium is claimed to be present in the individual the cop is arresting, not in the police themselves. The reason they attempt to justify greater force is in order to protect themselves from someone in such a state. I'm not agreeing with this, just stating what they would say.

[triceratops]

Oops. Completely misread the article. I'll leave my comment up with a note, and wear my shame.

[ve55]

It happens, appreciate the friendly response

[Digit-Al]

Have an upvote for your mature response. If more people were willing to own their mistakes instead of hiding or doubling down, the world would be a better place :-)

[jirdperson]

> However, nothing about its existence implies anything about police brutality.

As I read it, the article didn't seem to be implying that the existence of "excited delirium" itself implies something about police brutality. I took their argument to be that police departments' misapplication and/or overuse of the concept had led to increased instances police brutality. Not knowing anything else about this issue, it doesn't seem implausible to me that training police officers, who generally lack medical diagnostic skills, to constantly anticipate a human threat with superhuman strength and no sense of pain might lead to an increase in the use of excessive force.

[crooked-v]

One example is cited immediately in this article: https://www.floridatoday.com/in-depth/news/2019/10/24/excite...

> But in those deaths where there was no drug use and the toxicology came back negative, the only common denominator in virtually every case was the involvement of law enforcement, such as in the case of Gregory Lloyd Edwards.

> According to the autopsy report, Edwards died of "excited delirium and complications" due to "hyperactive and violent state with subsequent restraint."

[ve55]

Even so, people give a lot of credence to the title, which is obviously very clickbaity.

[gowld]

Which title? The HN/WaPo OP sas

WaPo: "Police keep using ‘excited delirium’ to justify brutality. It’s junk science."

HN: ‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

Both of which are accurate statements of the key point: There is a body of junk science based on the concept of ‘Excited delirium’, used to justify plice brutality.

The fact that there is something referred to as ‘Excited delirium’ that is not used for police brutality or junk science, doesn't make the title clickbait.

Astrology is junk science, despite the fact that the constellations do exist and that a person is born under a certain configuration of stars ar the location of their birth.

[rsynnott]

This is a very oddly written article.

> Excited delirium is not recognized by some professional medical associations

If you go to the reference for that, it mentions that it's not recognised by _any_ professional medical association.

[1as]

It is recognized by https://www.acep.org/. Hopefully not for long.

[SrslyJosh]

> Excited delirium is a very well-known and documented phenomenon, primarily in individuals that are on excessive doses of stimulants

"Well-known and documented" by the police, I think you mean.

Did you read what you just linked?

From the wikipedia article:

> Excited delirium is not recognized by some professional medical associations.

> EXD has been accepted by the National Association of Medical Examiners and the American College of Emergency Physicians, who argue in a 2009 white paper that "excited delirium" may be described by several codes within the ICD-9.

Imma repeat that for you:

> may be described by several codes within the ICD-9

In other words, "excited delirium" is not the diagnosis a physician would give.

More from the Wikipedia article:

> How frequently cases occur is unknown.[1] Males are affected more often than females.[9] Those who die from the condition are typically male with an average age of 36.[1] Often law enforcement has used tasers or physical measures in these cases.[1]

This sounds like really solid medical science! It's totally not something made up to cover police brutality!

> The first use of the term "excited delirium" (EXD) was in a 1985 Journal of Forensic Sciences article

Oh.

> The signs and symptoms for excited delirium may include:[12][13][14][15] > Aggressiveness and combativeness > Unexpected strength (typically while trying to resist restraint)

Did a police officer write this?

This is probably the most scattershot Wikipedia article I've ever read about a "medical condition", but it's also pretty damn effective in shooting down the idea that this is a real thing and not just a blanket term made up to cover the deaths of people brutalized by the police. (Assuming you don't unconditionally trust the police.)

> The pathophysiology of excited delirium is unclear,

Hahahahaha, of course it's unclear.

> Key signs of excited delirium are aggression, altered mental status, and diaphoresis/hyperthermia.

Is the primary treatment beating/tasing while shouting "stop resisting"?

Read the Wikipedia article for yourself. It's one hell of a trip.

[Spivak]

From your own link:

> The condition is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association or the World Health Organization. Critics of excited delirium have stated that the condition is often attributed to deaths while in the custody of law enforcement and is disproportionately applied to black and Hispanic victims.

This doesn't mean that it still isn't a thing. There are plenty of very real conditions that aren't yet officially recognized but when you have the current body of experts explicitly denying its existence your burden of proof is a lot higher.