Search This Blog

Sunday, September 17, 2023

Why being admitted to hospital in B.C. may soon mean being sent home instead

 My Account

Why being admitted to hospital in B.C. may soon mean being sent home instead

Fraser Health opened B.C.'s first virtual hospital unit, where 150 psychiatric patients have been treated from home. Experts say it is the way of the future.

Article content

After spending nine weeks in Peace Arch Hospital’s psychiatric ward, Sharon Leitch Joss knew she was ready to be discharged. But she was very worried about returning to her White Rock apartment after so much time in institutional care.

“Because of the volatile journey that I’ve had in the last six months, since March, my confidence had taken a hit,” recalled Leitch Joss. “On being ready to come home, I was really nervous because I live alone.”

Article content

Article content

In mid-August, her physician suggested a surprising solution — she could remain admitted to the psychiatric ward, but still move home as part of Fraser Health’s virtual hospital psychiatric unit, the first of its kind in B.C.

It was “the best thing” for her recovery, said Leitch Joss, who knows a thing or two about health care: She’s been a nurse for 40 years and teaches nursing to university students.

The virtual unit, launched quietly a year ago and announced publicly this week, has treated about 150 patients who were sent home with an iPad and basic health care gear, and treated online by doctors and nurses.

“We are equivalent to what a brick-and-mortar hospital unit would provide for a patient,” said Radhika Khosla, a psychiatric nurse and the unit’s operations manager.

“The difference is they’re not occupying or using a bed in the hospital. They’re actually in the comfort of their own home, with their family, their friends, their pets.”

interviewed in story
Radhika Khosla, manager of Fraser health’s virtual psychiatry unit, with the kit sent home with patients. PHOTO BY JASON PAYNE /PNG

The concept of virtual health isn’t new. It started to gain popularity as both patient waiting times and new-hospital construction costs grew, and was boosted further when the COVID-19 pandemic forced medical staff to use video platforms to “see” their patients.

Article content

Most B.C. health authorities now have various services that allow patients to connect with medical professionals online.

Some run the hospital-at-home program, which offers home visits and remote monitoring for people who require acute care for mild or moderate conditions. It was piloted in 2020 by Island Health, which today offers the virtual service through two Victoria hospitals to eligible patients who don’t have to be tied to any specific hospital unit, a spokesperson said.

Fraser Health, though, has created what appears to be the first virtual hospital unit in the province with a staff of more than 30 people. About eight people work each day in the 24-hour unit, some doing outreach and others providing online psychiatric services to eligible patients throughout the authority, which stretches from Burnaby to Hope.

Psychiatry was the obvious choice for the first virtual unit because demand was high due to mental health and substance use worsening during the pandemic, said the Fraser Health CEO, Dr. Victoria Lee. She has plans to introduce additional virtual hospital units in Fraser Health, and has sought advice from health leaders in other countries.

Article content

Article content

“There have been successful examples of virtual hospital services elsewhere in the world, whether it’s Israel, the U.S. or Australia,” she said.

interviewed for story
Sharon Leitch Joss is a former patient in Fraser Health’s new virtual psychiatric hospital unit. PHOTO BY NICK PROCAYLO /10102103A

The Canadian Institute for Health Information said in a 2022 report that Canada had “historically lagged behind its international peers” when it comes to virtual health technologies, but that has changed in recent years.

“In March 2022, about half of Canadians reported that they had been offered a virtual (medical) visit,” the report said.

In April, the institute announced it would collect more data to better guide future spending on virtual care, noting additional information is needed on its impact on medical spending and patient outcomes.

Leitch Joss has nothing but gratitude for Fraser Health’s virtual unit. She hit “a real low point” with anxiety and depression earlier this year, due to a number of colliding factors that included the strain of her elderly parents’ ailing health, other life pressures and severe reactions to psychiatric medication.

After being admitted to the virtual unit following her nine-week in-patient stay, she was provided with a “kit” of gear that a peer support worker showed her how to use at home: an iPad to communicate with medical staff, and machines that test vital signs such as temperature, pulse, blood pressure and oxygen saturation.

Article content

Leitch Joss had daily hour-long video calls with a psychiatrist, which often included other medical staff such as a pharmacist and psychologist. Nurses checked in with her about three times a day and, similar to ringing a bell at the side of a hospital bed, she could phone health workers 24-7 with any concerns.

“I actually found the virtual unit had more on-hand resources than the in-patient unit has, because they are so stretched for time and availability” in the hospital, Leitch Joss said. They would “do all the safety checks. Ask how you’re doing. Any concerns? How’s your day been? And you can do that virtually so that they’re seeing your face.”

Leitch Joss shared her story to explain the benefits of the virtual program, and to strees that any person from any walk of life may one day need mental health help, even a veteran registered nurse with a master of science in nursing from the University of B.C.

Patients like Leitch Joss can be offered a spot in the virtual unit through any Fraser hospital psychiatric ward or emergency room, said Khosla, who began helping to plan this new-age unit in late 2021. The criteria for acceptance includes being stable, not posing a risk to themselves or others, not needing several in-hospital treatments, and living in a safe place.

Article content

The unit also offers home visits, when patients need them, by staff based in Abbotsford and Surrey.

Patients are given a box with supplies for games and activities so they can participate when the unit’s recreational and occupational therapists run online workshops that range from yoga to life skills.

“You can get this 24-hour wraparound care — nursing support, all this rec-rehab care — but you can also do it from home, which is wonderful because that’s not ever been done before,” Khosla said. “I’m excited to see our unit be the forefront of all that change.”

The virtual unit’s patients have ranged in age from 18 to 70, and include youth who are afraid to go to the hospital and people who hesitate to seek help because of stigma.

interviewed for story
Dr. Anson Koo is the medical director of mental health and psychiatry programs at Fraser Health. PHOTO BY JASON PAYNE /PNG

Others are new mothers who suffer serious postpartum depression after having their babies, said Dr. Anson Koo, Fraser Health’s chief psychiatrist.

“In the past, they would have to be admitted to a psychiatric unit and separated from their babies,” he said. Now “these moms are able to receive in-patient psychiatric level care in the comfort of their homes with their babies … continuing to breastfeed.”

Article content

A survey of patients in the virtual unit, Koo said, found three out of five said it was much better than being a patient in a hospital ward, while the remainder were equally split between it being somewhat better or about the same as the traditional model.

“It’s because they want to get care at home,” he said.

About five per cent of patients, however, had to leave the virtual unit and return to a traditional hospital for a variety of reasons, including being too unwell to stay home, Koo said.

A handful of patients found the video calls and other technological requirements too taxing, Khosla added. The program has since made changes, such as creating a calendar that autofills with the patients’ appointments, rather than overloading them with separate email invitations, she said.

The unit has a total of eight patients at a time, who typically stay admitted for about two weeks before being discharged and connected to community mental health support.

Leitch Joss was released from the virtual unit at the end of August, after about 14 days. “I felt I was comfortable in being in my own home alone,” she said, adding she plans to return to teaching this fall.

Article content

interviewed for story
Sharon Leitch Joss is a former patient in Fraser Health’s new virtual psychiatric hospital unit. PHOTO BY NICK PROCAYLO /10102103A

The global management consulting firm McKinsey published a report in May that found virtual care could address rising demand, costs and patient dissatisfaction in health care. It analyzed health services in Australia, which it called a “bellwether” country for virtual hospital care, and found about 11 per cent of patients admitted to hospital beds could be treated at home.

If a virtual Australian hospital treated 9,500 patients a year, it would free up 47,500 bed-days annually and reduce spending on new hospitals by up to $90 million, the report said. There are also potential savings for operating budgets: The cost for a patient’s “episode of care” in Australia was $1,000 lower in a virtual unit compared to an in-patient ward, mainly due to reduced medical and labour costs, McKinsey found.

The report also said 90 per cent of Australians who received virtual care were somewhat or very satisfied, mainly due to convenience and avoiding being with other patients.

The U.K. plans to increase “virtual ward capacity by 40 to 50 virtual beds per 100,000 people by December 2023, which could allow more than 17 per cent of total admissions to be treated in virtual hospitals,” the McKinsey report says.

Saturday, August 19, 2023

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

 

The Atlantic

The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again

The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.

An illustration of Donald Trump behind bars that appear as the U.S. Constitution
Illustration by Jared Bartman / The Atlantic. Sources: Chip Somodevilla / Getty; U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.

The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.

Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.

The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause.

We were immensely gratified to see that a richly researched article soon to be published in an academic journal has recently come to the same conclusion that we had and is attracting well-deserved attention outside a small circle of scholars—including Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Anjani Jain of the Yale School of Management, whose encouragement inspired us to write this piece. The evidence laid out by the legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen in “The Sweep and Force of Section Three,” available as a preprint, is momentous. Sooner or later, it will influence, if not determine, the course of American constitutional history—and American history itself.

Written with precision and thoroughness, the article makes the compelling case that the relevance of Section 3 did not lapse with the passing of the generation of Confederate rebels, whose treasonous designs for the country inspired the provision; that the provision was not and could not have been repealed by the Amnesty Act of 1872 or by subsequent legislative enactments; and that Section 3 has not been relegated by any judicial precedent to a mere source of potential legislative authority, but continues to this day by its own force to automatically render ineligible for future public office all “former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion,” as Baude and Paulsen put it.

Among the profound conclusions that follow are that all officials who ever swore to support the Constitution—as every officer, state or federal, in every branch of government, must—and who thereafter either “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution or gave “aid and comfort to the enemies” of that Constitution (and not just of the United States as a sovereign nation) are automatically disqualified from holding future office and must therefore be barred from election to any office.

Regardless of partisan leaning or training in the law, all U.S. citizens should read and consider these two simple sentences from Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Fourteenth Amendment was promulgated and ratified in the context of postbellum America when, even after losing the Civil War, southern states were sending men to Congress who had held prominent roles in the Confederacy or otherwise supported acts of rebellion or insurrection against the United States.

The two of us have long believed, and Baude and Paulsen have now convincingly demonstrated, that notwithstanding its specific historical origin, Section 3 is no anachronism or relic from the past; rather, it applies with the same force and effect today as it did the day it was ratified—as does every other provision, clause, and word of the Constitution that has not been repealed or revised by amendment.

Baude and Paulsen also conclude that Section 3 requires no legislation, criminal conviction, or other judicial action in order to effectuate its command. That is, Section 3 is “self-executing.” (Other scholars have relied on Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase’s poorly reasoned opinion in an 1869 case called In Re Griffin to support the contrary view. Baude and Paulsen decisively dismantle Griffin as a precedent.)

They conclude further that disqualification pursuant to Section 3 is not a punishment or a deprivation of any “liberty” or “right” inasmuch as one who fails to satisfy the Constitution’s qualifications does not have a constitutional “right” or “entitlement” to serve in a public office, much less the presidency. (For that reason, they argue that the section, although it does not entirely override preexisting limits on governmental power, such as the First Amendment’s ban on abridgments of the freedom of speech, powerfully affects their application.) Finally, the authors conclude that Section 3 is “expansive and encompassing” in what it regards as “insurrection or rebellion” against the constitutional order and “aid and comfort to the enemies” of the United States.

Baude and Paulsen are two of the most prominent conservative constitutional scholars in America, and both are affiliated with the Federalist Society, making it more difficult for them to be dismissed as political partisans. Thus it is all the more significant and sobering that they do not hesitate to draw from their long study of the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history the shattering conclusion that the attempted overturning of the 2020 presidential election and the attack on the Capitol, intended to prevent the joint session from counting the electoral votes for the presidency, together can be fairly characterized as an “insurrection” or “rebellion.” They write:

The bottom line is that Donald Trump both “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution.

At the time of the January 6 attack, most Democrats and key Republicans described it as an insurrection for which Trump bore responsibility. We believe that any disinterested observer who witnessed that bloody assault on the temple of our democracy, and anyone who learns about the many failed schemes to bloodlessly overturn the election before that, would have to come to the same conclusion. The only intellectually honest way to disagree is not to deny that the event is what the Constitution refers to as “insurrection” or “rebellion,” but to deny that the insurrection or rebellion matters. Such is to treat the Constitution of the United States as unworthy of preservation and protection.

Baude and Paulsen embrace the “idea that men and women who swore an oath to support the Constitution as government officials, but who betrayed that oath by engaging in or abetting acts of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, should be disqualified from important positions of government power in the future (unless forgiven by supermajorities of both houses of Congress).” To them, as to us, this will forever “remain a valid, valuable,” and “vital precept” for America.

Section 3’s disqualification clause has by no means outlived its contemplated necessity, nor will it ever, as the post–Civil War Framers presciently foresaw. To the contrary, this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution. Every official who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, as Article VI provides every public official must, is obligated to enforce this very provision.

The Baude-Paulsen article has already inspired a national debate over its correctness and implications for the former president. The former federal judge and Stanford law professor Michael McConnell cautions that “we are talking about empowering partisan politicians such as state Secretaries of State to disqualify their political opponents from the ballot … If abused, this is profoundly anti-democratic.” He also believes, as we do, that insurrection and rebellion are “demanding terms, connoting only the most serious of uprisings against the government,” and that Section 3 “should not be defined down to include mere riots or civil disturbances.” McConnell worries that broad definitions of insurrection and rebellion, with the “lack of concern about enforcement procedure … could empower partisans to seek disqualification every time a politician supports or speaks in support of the objectives of a political riot.”

We share these concerns, and we concur that the answer to them lies in the wisdom of judicial decisions as to what constitutes “insurrection,” “rebellion,” or “aid or comfort to the enemies” of the Constitution under Section 3.

As a practical matter, the processes of adversary hearing and appeal will be invoked almost immediately upon the execution and enforcement of Section 3 by a responsible election officer—or, for that matter, upon the failure to enforce Section 3 as required. When a secretary of state or other state official charged with the responsibility of approving the placement of a candidate’s name on an official ballot either disqualifies Trump from appearing on a ballot or declares him eligible, that determination will assuredly be challenged in court by someone with the standing to do so, whether another candidate or an eligible voter in the relevant jurisdiction. Given the urgent importance of the question, such a case will inevitably land before the Supreme Court, where it will in turn test the judiciary’s ability to disentangle constitutional interpretation from political temptation. (Additionally, with or without court action, the second sentence of Section 3 contains a protection against abuse of this extraordinary power by these elections officers: Congress’s ability to remove an egregious disqualification by a supermajority of each House.)

The entire process, with all its sometimes frail but thus far essentially effective constitutional guardrails, will frame the effort to determine whether the threshold of “insurrection” or “rebellion” was reached and which officials, executive or legislative, were responsible for the January 6 insurrection and the broader efforts to reverse the election’s results.

The process that will play out over the coming year could give rise to momentary social unrest and even violence. But so could the failure to engage in this constitutionally mandated process. For our part, we would pray for neither unrest nor violence from the American people during a process of faithful application and enforcement of their Constitution.

If donald trump were to be reelected, how could any citizen trust that he would uphold the oath of office he would take upon his inauguration? As recently as last December, the former president posted on Truth Social his persistent view that the last presidential election was a “Massive Fraud,” one that “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

No person who sought to overthrow our Constitution and thereafter declared that it should be “terminated” and that he be immediately returned to the presidency can in good faith take the oath that Article II, Section 1 demands of any president-elect “before he enter on the Execution of his Office.”

We will not attempt to express this constitutional injunction better than did George Washington himself in his “Farewell Address” to the nation, in 1796:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency …

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Our first president may well have been our most prescient. His fears about “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” have, over the centuries, proved all too well founded. But his even stronger hopes for the republic were not misplaced. Still today, the Constitution, through its Reconstruction Amendments, contains a safeguard that it originally lacked—a safeguard against the undermining of our constitutional democracy and the rule of law at the hands of those whose lust for power knows no bounds.

The men who framed and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment entrusted to us, “the People of the United States,” the means to vigilantly protect against those who would make a mockery of American democracy, the Constitution, the rule of law—and of America itself. It fell to the generations that followed to enforce our hallowed Constitution and ensure that our Union endures. Today, that responsibility falls to us.

J. Michael Luttig is a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Laurence H. Tribe is a University professor of constitutional law emeritus at Harvard Law School.