First, that seems needlessly absolutist. We're literally talking about upending decades of emergency response practice here, surely it should be reasonable to

First, that seems needlessly absolutist. We're literally talking about upending decades of emergency response practice here, surely it should be reasonable to talk about tweaks to the process (mandatory judicial hearings within N days of mental health detentions seem very reasonable to me) without demanding that a change be thrown out because of a theoretical problem. Second, is there data here? I mean, the article lists 748 tracked incidents. Did any even lead to an involuntary hospital admission? Shouldn't we figure this out first? Inventing terms like "medical authoritarianism" seems like more noise than signal, basically. Surely the fourth amendment as it stands can speak to the needs of mental health cases just as it can accused criminals.