I think this is an easy thought experiment. If a person is considered a danger to others and not just themselves then involuntary hold is warranted given that the alternative often ends in termination by cop to protect the public. If they are only a danger to themselves then there would no longer be a need for involuntary hold if the only danger is truly just to themselves and in reality it isn't really even a danger given they consented to it whereas harm to the public can not be consented to. This is one of the rare cases where it is really their body, their choice.
