Not to be too snarky, but EMTs don't carry morphine. Restricted substances like morphine are only carried by paramedics (or some AEMTs in systems that still have them). As such, paramedics are dispatched to calls that require a higher level of care while ambulances staffed solely with EMTs are sent to less emergent situations. This lines up pretty well with what the GP described.

This is in reference to American standards of care, other countries may be different.

Far from snark, this certainly seems to reinforce the point. We have two levels of response, where one level is called in for more dire circumstances (life or death) and correspondingly has equipment capable of handling a worse situation.

I completely agree and you could prove it with a study.

You would just have to answer for what percentage of those call did the responding parties (dispatch, the officer responding and the person calling it in) thought there was a need for armed police.

I am willing to be that while only 5% turn out to need armed police, most of those 5% where uncertain, and a % far greater than that where armed police weren't needed, where very uncertain.

It's just not possible to predict when you need to be armed.

However, if you go down this line it is also not possible to predict when having a gun on your hip is going to make it more difficult to resolve the issue.

There is a tradeoff here that is very hard to make policy around. Something that is being tried is for there to be unarmed medical oriented mental health response units available for calls that don't seem uncertain. I think the data coming out of these changes will change the way big cities operate their departments one day.

> This is in reference to American standards of care, other countries may be different.