The recent Nova Scotia report on the topic of "excited delirium" [LINK] had a tone that seemed almost defensive of this all-too-convenient excuse for far-too-many taser-associated deaths.
It's a bit like taking your car to a transmission shop, there's a fair chance your car's transmission is going to get taken apart and rebuilt, no matter if it really needed it or not. Without intending to be disrespectful to the panel of experts, it appears that they didn't include any excited delirium skeptics. If you ask for a report on "excited delirium", then you're gonna get a report on "excited delirium". It would have be amusing if they had submitted a one-page report with the response, "No such thing." - but that might be a bit much to expect.
The issue is not about the existance of a mental condition, or a set of behaviours, whose name the panel was just a bit too happy to adjust. 'Adventures in nomenclaturism.'
The issue is the rate of fatal outcomes with the application of the taser as compared to other approaches starting with de-escalation. In that respect the Nova Scotia report was a bit closer to the mark.
Also, very critically for the taser-safety issue which is larger than the topic of "excited delirium", there are plenty of reports of young, healthy, drug-free, non-excited, non-delirious people being tasered and ending up dead. The taser darts landing on the chest seem to be a suspiciously-common characteristic of such taser-associated deaths that obviously have nothing whatsoever to do with any "excited delirium" excuses.
If you arrived here on direct link to a specific post, then you may click here if you wish to view all the latest posts on the Excited-Delirium blog.