Is there a less vague excerpt you could post to get one to click the msm site for hits?
Woke CYA.
Tell that to any urban LEO.
I’m too tired to find the studies that were the genesis for excited delirium which, ironically, were meant to identify subjects which required different handling (and training) by police.
Worse than woke, by removing the condition as criteria for a violent subject, use of force criteria are the only remaining options (assuming responding officers aren’t social workers) and, ultimately, injury & death of mostly minority subjects.
Gee: I wonder what the motivation is here...
There is no psychiatric diagnosis of “excited delirium.” The term appears to be made up by lawyers for forensic purposes. That may make it a term of art but it has no scientific validity.
I don’t understand either headline or topic sentence.
The context of all these phrases is unclear to me. Interesting, yes, but unclear.
As though the conclusions are being presented before the issue.
It’s not a made up term. It’s real.
Types of Delirium
Hypoactive delirium —> lethargic, sleepy, withdrawn. Seen in encephalopathy (hepatic, metabolic) and benzo intoxication.
Hyperactive delirium —> agitated, hallucinations, delusions, often seen in withdrawal syndromes. Often have a mixed type that alternates between agitated and quiet.
If the “diagnosis” were in the context of receiving treatment in a hospital, they are correct.
But the context here is the words used to describe the behavior of a suspect that warrant different treatment by the officers on the scene.
When dealing with such an individual, I imagine the officers are often unable to have a long conversation with dispatch so a quick description works best.
If doctors don’t like the terminology, too bad.