That's an excellent point, and this is something that we struggle with a fair bit, recognizing that the number of people available to do assessments would be restricted certainly in small locations. We thought about the possibility, which expanded during COVID, of virtual and telemedicine assessments as well.
I think the problem you're raising is that every safeguard has a flip side to it. It increases the difficulty of access. It increases safety, while imposing barriers at the same time. There's an inevitable pairing of those things, so it has to be weighed in terms of whether the additional safety to be achieved is justified in light of the additional burdens it imposes.
A number of my colleagues felt it was quite important to have an independent psychiatrist to make sure there was a second view on things, independent of the type of relationship or other views that might accumulate in the treatment relationship. We also thought it was very important to have independent external assessors for people in particular circumstances that would raise the risk of coercion, such as people who are institutionalized or in prison, for example. I think there are some circumstances in which that independent assessment will be incredibly important, or even essential.
I don't think I can say any more than that, except that I think you're right; it will increase the difficulty of access.