Talk:Excited delirium

Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I invite anyone else to edit this page, as I just really threw a lot of it together based off of news articles and general information I could find on it. If anyone has better information or a better format, go nuts.

speaking as someone who stumbled onto this page with no prior knowledge of the concept, I found this article quite confusing due to the fact that there is no description of the proposed mechanisms that cause the deaths of the victims of excited delirium. I had to read the external article before I could understand the concept as a whole. As it is, this article just says that there it is controversial and was involved in the deaths of police restraining victims. It would be helpful if it mentioned somewhere that it's theorized the brain causes cardiac arrest - some guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.202.95 (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the majority of Wikipedia articles so liberal and slanted? I'm sure the handful of people that have their deaths labeled as Sudden Cardiac Death Due to Excited Delirium each year are clean, healthy, normal people. There's no possibility they could have prior medical problems due to drug abuse, mental illness, or prior injury. In fact, it is very unlikely that those people being restrained and tased by police officers have been violent or dangerous to themselves or others. They probably were walking to church when the police tased and sat on them until they died for no good reason. Why not give a medical description of Excited Delerium instead of a biased forgery of an article. ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.189.110 (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, most of them are high on drugs at the time. The proposed mechanism is adrenaline overload. Supposedly if you can get them to the emergency room, there are some reasonably efficacious treatments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is basically identical to the one at zarc.com (http://www.zarc.com/english/other_sprays/reports/excited_delirium.html) Apart from the copyright issues this might cause, the zarc article has obvious POV issues to be used as the sole source for this page, being that it is published by a pepper spray manufacturer. This page should probably be tagged as POV in dispute (sorry, I don't know how to do that). 140.107.169.117 01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I helps, I went through the article and tried to re-write several portions and fix any issues that did not convey the story with adequate neutrality. If there is anything else that should be changed, go ahead and do so or say so and I'll try and fix it. -- 72.54.124.78

I reverted the article to the version before the copyrighted text was added. Modifying the content does not work well for resolving copyright issues. Unless the content is entirely rewritten, some of the content is always still unaltered, and violating copyright just "a little bit" does not make it acceptable. -- Kjkolb 12:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be obscene, but if you're going to remove most of the content of the page, even if it is because of copyright issues, at least leave a stub notice on it. --8472

And this doesn't seem to be a very neutral POV. --198.164.151.6 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To maintain neutrality on this topic, I suggest that every line in the article have a reference. We should have both side of the issue present with each given its own space. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Although I am not particularly inclined to encourage differing "sides" on the matter carving out their own little partitioned subsections within the article. dr.ef.tymac 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's main cause is a rush of adrenelin, believe me I have had gone through this lots of times, either that or its a genetic defect, in that case get me an honorable death.

The only genetic defect it could be is a defect from my fathers side, possibly caused by agent orange during vietnam.

Or its because I have a lack of L-Tryptophan in my diet.

Or it was caused by my sister.

Or it was caused by Geodon withdraw.

Or it was caused by behavior modification in therapy.

Or it was caused by reverse gender rolls.

Or arguing with bad teachers.

Or getting graded down in college because of my political views.

Or it was caused by James Carvill (that man scares the crap out of me, and not because of all the people he's killed).

Good grief someone help me out here, and I don't need psychological help, I met all the goals on my goals sheet in thearapy.

Darrell Porter did not die from this, he was always a very calm and collective person when I knew him.

There is no evidence of any of this, just personal observation on my side.

Ok. You have shared your personal observation. Thank you for giving people a chance to see what you have to say. It is much better than erasing the whole page and silencing everyone else.

Just remember, before putting words in the Wikipedia article or taking words out, you need to have some evidence so people can learn more. That way, no one can blame you or discredit you saying, "He's just writing from his own personal opinion." Even if there is some misleading information in the article, it takes calm and collected research and time to reach our goal to improve it. It's not always easy, but if we cooperate, it works. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 02:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter, I was just testing you guys(I never had any malicious intent), I have never bothered exploring this side of wikipedia so I was unaware of all of this. My experiences with the psychiatric community did happen, and I am not lying about my opservations, I should not have been on Geodon in the first place. I will stay on the front side, just paint my future a good one for me, I will add my e-mail address and my real full name to my page so people can contact me when they need me to vouch for anything. My username page is a little unorganized because it didn't save character returns, but etom needs to be in the Iraq Dinar folklore somehow so I know I can trust you guys to take care of it. Just remember, I am not a meddler nor am I an infidel. I am very convinced that all of you have something going with this wikipedia project, and you will recieve donations from me on a regular basis. I just want to stay off those psychiatric meds and sleeping pills, they scare girls away. Oh yeah and I am a man FYI. Good luck to you all, and don't get too technical on things, and don't stear away from the fundamentals. All the evidence of my psychiatric experience's are in my medical records, which remain private, but quite frankley I would not mind making them public to some people so we can put an end to some of this.

Thank You All

etom

I edited the page to remove the implication that tasering caused death ("tasered to death"). It could be a contributing factor, but the direct link hasn't been proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.16.177 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the people listed as being examples are men. I wonder if this is significant or just co-incidental. Is there any reliable info out there on this aspect? If so, it should be included or at least referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandma Roses (talk • contribs) 11:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that there should be at least one link to Police_brutality. This article certainly implies the possibility of such. There are many ways an officer of the law can go beyond that law, and this is one of them. --82.93.172.114 (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "abc" :
  • {{cite web |url=http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2919037&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 |title=Excited Delirium: Police Brutality vs. Sheer Insanity |accessdate=2007-03-13 |publisher=[[ABCNews]] |date=2007-03-02 }}
  • {{cite web |url=http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2919037&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 |title=Excited Delirium: Police Brutality vs. Sheer Insanity |accessdate=2007-03-13 |publisher=[[ABCNews]] |date=[[March 2]], [[2007]] }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This news story is interesting, and might be related (directly or indirectly) to this article, but I can't find a proper scientific paper for it. It may not have been published just yet, since it was only presented at the conference today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview on CBC's The Current Calgary alderman Diane Colley-Urquhart justified expanded use of the Taser in Calgary. At one point she stated that you can die from excited delirium without the use of a Taser. Is anyone aware of anyone dying from excited delirium that didn't have some sort of physical interaction with the police? Stephen Rasku (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer,

Yes there are many many cases of people dying without police being involved. I find the very first part of this entry to be badly distorted to give the view that this is something ONLY related to police. It isn't. It is just that when these incidents happen in public, police are invariably called and become involved. It's akin to saying houses burning down are the fault of firemen spraying water because they are always found to be there when the house has burned down.

The confusion in the public is caused because the media only reports those occurrences that have happened in public. In fact there are numerous documented cases of people dying in places such as hospitals and psychiatric wards who clearly are exhibiting the same state, however these are not reported by the media and in fact they are seldom aware of them. There are papers written on these deaths in psychiatric wards back in the early 1800's. Interestingly there is a very similar condition that has caused sudden death in wild animals when captured (such as by game wardens or wildlife biologists). In those fields it is know as Capture Myopathy or Exertional Myopathy.

The second part of the confusion is due to the term itself, "Excited Delirium". This is a relatively modern term. Because the medical profession does not quite understand what EXACTLY is going on, there is no true medical term for it. It's like Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or Died of Natural Causes. It's real, you know what it means and looks like, but it's not a proper medical term. Over the years, and even today, it can be labelled with several different terms and has historically been called such things as Positional Asphyxiation, Exhaustion, Sudden Exhaustive Death in Excited Manics, and so on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnaevans (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

While the article states that "excited delirium" is no longer used to explain a medical condition by the Metropolitan Police, the same condition is now referred to as "Acute Behavioural Disorder". ABD is known to medical professionals, especially EMTs, etc, who deal with the public on a regular basis. As I understand it, one of the reasons for changing the term was that not enough people understood it, which may explain the (frankly unwarranted) scepticism on the other side of the Atlantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.138.27 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the article, really, is The Social Construction of Reality, after Peter L. Berger laid out this sociological construct many years ago. I believe it the first episode of such a social process to mimic the plot and content of George Orwell's book 1984. The police of the Ministry of Truth who held up three fingers and yelled "four fingers" before applying high voltage shock to some subject in need of "education" have now emerged from the book pages and are walking up your driveway. Excited delirium as a "self evident" stand alone phenomenon would not make it into the A.P.A. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. This is going to require the expenditure of megabucks to procure a myriad credentialed shills and whores to swear up and down the phenomenon exists, who will then run to the bank. By one tally the USA is up to 476 taser deaths as this note is written. The autopsies have all been done by police coroners. It brings new meaning to the concept of a Protection Racket.

The part i feel that should be edited is

Toney Steele, was one of the first high-profile cases involving the cause of death as "excited delirium", this drug addict died in San Diego after being restrained in the back of a patrol car.[16]

I do not feel it necessary to label the victim as a drug addict. It is neither here nor there with regards to this topic. If no one changes it or offers an explanation to why it should not be changed then I will change it on my own accords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralChoomin (talk • contribs) 01:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of OR-based edits I would like to make to this page, so I am "venting" here. I googled on "Excited delirium" because I was doing some OR. The Seattle (WA, US) police just called the medics for a man who is exhibiting signs of "excited delirium." He is in a 7-11 with a handgun, taking off his clothes, and drinking all the gatorade. He will not come outside or obey their orders. So, they have sent for officers with tasers and bean-bag shotguns in order to perhaps subdue him given the opportunity. These are what the police call "less-lethal devices." In the beginning of tonight's stand-off, there were a few tense moments during which the armed and delirious suspect might have walked out of the store while waving a gun. In that case, he would have been killed. So, the arrival of police with tasers and other less-lethal means has been a relief. Anyway, the police just called a precautionary ambulance because the person showed the signs of what the called "Excited delirium" as he began to [remove his clothes, and start drinking all the gatorade]. It sounds like they think he is going to pass out pretty soon of his own devices, and then they will have him treated. Or perhaps they are worried that they will try to tase him, if he comes outside wielding the firearm, and then he will collapse or something.

Anyway, the article has a strong bias that 'excited delirium' is a made-up term. Whatever the case, it seems like a term that police use as part of their jargon, and it means something useful and observation-oriented for them. The police won't be using a DSM-IV based term when they run across a man in a 7-11 who is wielding a firearm, disrobing, and drinking all of the gatorade. "Delirious" and "excited" both sound applicable to such individuals.

The tone of the article is so anti-establishment and biased I think it could use a major rewrite at best. Heathhunnicutt (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]