A recent document has revealed shocking information about the use of a controversial diagnosis within the Rochester Police Department. This diagnosis, known as “excited delirium,” has been linked to the death of Daniel Prude, a Black man who died in police custody in March of 2020. The document sheds light on how this diagnosis infiltrated the department and raises questions about its validity.
The document, which was obtained by The Intercept, shows that the Rochester Police Department had been using the “excited delirium” diagnosis for years before Prude’s death. This diagnosis is often used to explain the sudden and unexplained deaths of individuals in police custody, particularly those who are experiencing mental health issues or are under the influence of drugs. However, it has been widely debunked by medical experts and is not recognized by the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association.
The use of this diagnosis in the case of Daniel Prude is particularly concerning. Prude, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, was restrained by police officers who placed a hood over his head and pressed his face into the ground for several minutes. He lost consciousness and was later pronounced brain dead at the hospital. The medical examiner’s report listed the cause of death as “complications of asphyxia in the setting of physical restraint,” but also noted the presence of “excited delirium.”
This diagnosis has been used by law enforcement to justify the use of force in cases where individuals have died in police custody. However, medical experts have stated that the symptoms of “excited delirium” are often a result of the use of excessive force, not the cause of death. In fact, the American Medical Association has stated that the use of this diagnosis is “inappropriate and unscientific.”
The use of this diagnosis in the case of Daniel Prude is not an isolated incident. The document obtained by The Intercept shows that the Rochester Police Department had been using this diagnosis for years, despite its lack of scientific validity. This raises serious concerns about the training and practices within the department and calls into question the actions of the officers involved in Prude’s death.
The document also reveals that the New York Attorney General’s office, which is currently investigating Prude’s death, had initially listed “excited delirium” as a possible cause of death in their report. However, after facing backlash and criticism from medical experts, they removed this diagnosis from the final report. This further highlights the need for accountability and transparency in cases of police brutality and the use of excessive force.
The use of “excited delirium” as a diagnosis in cases of police brutality is not only scientifically unsound, but it also perpetuates a dangerous narrative that blames the victim for their own death. This diagnosis has been used to justify the use of force against individuals who are already vulnerable, such as those experiencing mental health crises or substance abuse issues. It is a convenient way for law enforcement to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and to shift the blame onto the victim.
The death of Daniel Prude and the use of the “excited delirium” diagnosis in his case has sparked outrage and calls for justice. The Rochester Police Department must be held accountable for their use of this controversial diagnosis and for the actions of the officers involved in Prude’s death. The use of excessive force and the failure to provide proper care for individuals in police custody must not be tolerated.
In conclusion, the newly obtained document sheds light on the dangerous and unfounded use of the “excited delirium” diagnosis within the Rochester Police Department. This diagnosis has been used to justify the use of force and shift the blame onto the victim in cases of police brutality. It is time for law enforcement to be held accountable for their actions and for the use of this diagnosis to be debunked once and for all. The death of Daniel Prude and the use of this diagnosis must not be in vain, and we must continue to demand justice and accountability for all victims of police brutality.
