We generally wouldn't allow that either. We've ran into cases where emergency fixes cause even more damage (e.g., the system is up, but now it's processing payments wrong), so you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the test failures are irrelevant or less bad than the current incident.

Often times it's less effort/more expedient to make the change pass tests (or update the tests) than convince all of the stakeholders that what you're about to do is safe, but the break-glass is there if needed.

Maybe you'd call this a militant test ideology, but I think it's perfectly reasonable. Systems are complex, and people can get tunnel vision during a bad outage.