by David Gibbs
ADAMSON: When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I thought I was going insane. I was screaming out in my mind, ‘‘Don’t you know I need to eat?’’ And even up until that point, I had been having a bagful of Ensure as my nourishment that was going through the feeding tube. At that point, it sounded pretty good. I just wanted something. The fact that I had nothing, the hunger pains overrode every thought I had.
O’REILLY: So you were feeling pain when they removed your tube?
ADAMSON: Yes. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. To say that—especially when Michael [Schiavo] on national TV mentioned last week that it’s a pretty painless thing to have the feeding tube removed—it is the exact opposite. It was sheer torture, Bill.
O’REILLY: It’s just amazing.
ADAMSON: Sheer torture. . . .8
Why didn’t the New York Times invite Kate Adamson to weigh in on their article before perpetuating a myth? Why did Michael Schiavo feel compelled to discount the concerns and feelings of his in-laws about the inhumane treatment of their daughter—calling it one of their ‘‘little soapboxes’’? And why does George Felos, who is a learned man, continue to this day to misrepresent the reality of Terri’s suffering?
FELOS: ‘‘ SHE LOOKS BEAUTIFUL’’
To say that attorney George Felos has some unusual ideas about life, death, and making the transition from one world to the other would be an understatement. His cold, clinical view of Terri’s slow, torturous death and his ongoing efforts to put a positive spin on her unbearable pain can be traced back to his first right-to-die case, that of Estelle Browning.
Like Kate, Mrs. Browning suffered a stroke. In her case, she remained comatose or, as Mr. Felos described her, a ‘‘total care’’ patient for eighteen months. Here’s the complication. Although Mrs. Browning left an advance instruction declining a feeding tube, both the nursing home and the doctors in charge of her care insisted that the tube remain in place. The year was 1990. The Florida legislature had not yet declared that a feeding tube was ‘‘medical treatment,’’ which a patient could refuse. Removing the tube would have been illegal in 1990.
At that juncture a cousin of Mrs. Browning sought legal assistance from George Felos to use the courts to remove the feeding tube in a first-ever state ‘‘right to privacy’’ case to decline food and water. Felos agreed to take the case, with one condition: He wanted to visit Mrs. Browning first. In his book, Litigation As Spiritual Practice, Mr. Felos described his quest to understand what Mrs. Browning’s true wishes were in the matter. He writes:
I stared as far into her eyes as I could, hoping to sense some glimmer of understanding, some hint of awareness. The deeper I dove, the darker became the blue, until the blue became the black of some bottomless lake. ‘‘Mrs. Browning, do you want to die? . . . Do you want to die?’’—I near shouted as I continued to peer into her pools of strikingly beautiful but incognizant blue. It felt so eerie. Her eyes were wide open . . . but instead of the warmth of lucidity, they burned with the ice of expressionlessness.9
Oddly, he interrupted the poetic, trancelike narrative in order to spend almost an entire chapter vilifying the feeding tube as if it were a living, monstrous thing. He described this medically essential tool as nothing more than ‘‘a plastic sack half filled with sickly beige-looking fluid’’ that ‘‘snaked down’’ into Mrs. Browning’s stomach.
With great passion, he railed against the feeding tube as ‘‘an instrument to cruelly perpetuate, a painful, degrading, and horrific existence.’’ In his view, it was nothing more than ‘‘an unwelcome agent’’ artificially prolonging ‘‘the natural process of her death.’’
Mr. Felos then moved on to describe what he calls ‘‘soul speak’’— that’s the moment when his soul allegedly communicated through some mystical union with the soul of Mrs. Browning on an unseen, higher dimension. That encounter would forever change his life’s work. He writes at length about his unexpected brush with the spiritual realm:
As I continued to stay beside Mrs. Browning at her nursing home bed, I felt my mind relax and my weight sink into the ground. I began to feel lightheaded as I became more reposed. Although feeling like I could drift into sleep, I also experienced a sense of heightened awareness. As Mrs. Browning lay motionless before my gaze, I suddenly heard a loud, deep moan and scream and wondered if the nursing home personnel heard it and would respond to the unfortunate resident. In the next moment, as this cry of pain and torment continued, I realized it was Mrs. Browning.
I felt the midsection of my body open and noticed a strange quality to the light in the room. I sensed her soul in agony. As she screamed I heard her say, in confusion, ‘‘Why am I still here . . . Why am I here?’’ My soul touched hers and in some way I communicated that she was still locked in her body. I promised I would do everything in my power to gain the release her soul cried for.
With that, the screaming immediately stopped. I felt like I was back in my head again, the room resumed its normal appearance, and Mrs. Browning, as she had throughout this experience, lay silent.10
In case there might be any who find such a narrative a tad eccentric if not difficult to embrace, Mr. Felos adds:
My first thought shouted, Did this happen . . . did I imagine it?
Quite typical for the rational mind, wouldn’t you say? I knew without a doubt what had transpired was real.11
Are you beginning to understand where Mr. Felos is coming from? His belief system, which enables him to engage in such ‘‘soul speak,’’ is, by his own admission, rooted in an unorthodox blend of mysticism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and a heavy sprinkling of yoga. Based upon this personal construct, he asserts that in ‘‘reality you have never been born and never can die.’’12 That view might explain why he is able to exhibit such a skilled, otherworldly detachment for the very real-world suffering and death of Terri.
It might also explain why he is now on a crusade to advance the right-to-die movement and views the death of Terri Schiavo as a satisfying accomplishment. As he would comment later in an address to fellow lawyers and judges in West Palm Beach, Florida, ‘‘She died a dignified and peaceful death. To the extent that the law was ultimately able to provide that for her, I’m very proud.’’13 Challenging Mr. Felos’s assessment that she didn’t suffer and that she died peacefully, Terri’s brother, Bobby Schindler, hit the nail on the head when he said, ‘‘This is heinous what’s happening . . . absolutely barbaric. If she is in fact dying so peacefully and easily, why not allow a camera in there to videotape it?’’14 I’ll tell you why. If the networks had broadcast even sixty seconds of Terri’s suffering, the public outcry would still be ringing in our ears today.
After a valiant fight against death, Terri’s body finally shut down on March 31, 2005, after thirteen days of dehydration and starvation. At that point George Felos displayed an amazing exercise in illogic. Approaching the swarm of cameras just outside the hospice, he spoke with a mortician’s unflappable monotone: ‘‘Patients don’t starve to death by removal of artificial nutrition and hydration.’’15 That’s true. They dehydrate first.
Now who’s on a soapbox?
Unshaken by Terri’s loss, Mr. Felos turned a corner in his thinking. He actually believes what was done to Terri has the support of the American people. He said, ‘‘In a world of conflict people crave peace and understanding. I’m gratified to receive the overwhelming support and heart-felt response to my message of healing.’’16 Let me ask you a question: How is depriving a person of food and water until they die a form of ‘‘healing’’?
Thankfully, his view isn’t very widely shared—yet.
FORCE - FEEDING FELONS
In the fall of 2002, the nation was gripped by a series of random, yet deadly, sniper attacks against innocent civilians in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. With ten dead and three wounded, residents in the area held their breath wondering when the next senseless shots would claim another life.
A break in the case led
to the capture and conviction of John Allen Muhammad, who had converted the trunk of a 1990 Chevrolet Caprice into a private shooting arcade. Each of his victims was murdered by a single .223-caliber bullet fired from a Bushmaster rifle. Muhammad, an expert marksman, pulled the trigger while his younger partner in terror, Lee Malvo, drove the car.
In 2003 Muhammad was convicted and sentenced to die for one of the shootings in Manassas, Virginia. He was then transferred to the Montgomery County jail in Maryland, where he remains incarcerated to face six additional murder charges. The case took an interesting turn, however, when Muhammad decided to stop eating.
Upset about the rules governing access to his legal files as well as his disapproval over the food served, Muhammad refused to eat or drink. That is, until Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge James L. Ryan stepped in and ordered the convicted sniper to be force-fed. Corrections officials warned that their prisoner was ‘‘in imminent danger of very serious bodily harm, including death, if he does not begin to receive nourishment within the next several days.’’17 Let’s not miss the irony.
In Florida, a judge ordered the starvation of Terri Schiavo, an innocent woman, who left no written instructions that she wanted to die that way. Meanwhile, a Maryland judge ordered the forced feeding of John Muhammad, a convicted murderer who had been sentenced to die, even though he was in full control of his faculties and had made it perfectly clear that he wanted to starve. Why didn’t the legal system protect his ‘‘right to die’’ in the same way that judges imposed this ‘‘right’’ on Terri?
Let’s set aside the absurdity of a legal system that permits this inexcusable paradox. Even if we really knew what Terri wanted, Florida law makes aiding and abetting a suicide a criminal action. Rather than starve Terri Schiavo, the state of Florida should have examined how New Jersey dealt with the intentional starvation of fellow humans. What would they have learned?
Read on.
HUNGRY FOR JUSTICE
In October of 2003 Bruce Jackson was nineteen years old but had the body weight of a seven-year-old child; he weighed just forty-five pounds. Measuring just four feet tall when authorities from New Jersey’s social services spotted him, Bruce was rummaging through a neighbor’s trash can for something to eat. Bruce and his three younger brothers had been adopted by a family who allegedly refused to feed them properly.
Bone thin and suffering from severe malnutrition, Michael, nine, weighed a mere twenty-three pounds. Brother Tyrone, ten, fared slightly better, weighing twenty-eight pounds. Their fourteen-year-old sibling Keith weighed forty pounds.18 All four children were taken into protective custody while the adoptive parents were charged with twenty-eight counts of aggravated assault and child endangerment. Published reports indicate that the children had frequently relied on a diet of uncooked pancake batter and discarded gypsum wallboard.
While the physical and mental damage is possibly irreversible, the state of New Jersey wants to make sure the Jackson brothers receive a fighting chance at survival. In September 2005 the state agreed to award $12.5 million19 out of the treasury for their rehabilitation, education, and care; Bruce Jackson will receive $5 million since he suffered the most damage. His brothers will net $2.5 million each.
Clearly, the state of New Jersey takes a dim view of starving people. If Terri had been abused by her parents in New Jersey, or if she had been a felon in Maryland, she never would have been allowed to be dehydrated and starved. This inconsistency demonstrates for me the uncomfortable irony of Terri’s case.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
WASHINGTON WEIGHS IN
The diagnostic studies upon which the decision to terminate [Terri Schiavo’s] life have been based . . . were inadequate, and insufficient to allow a reasoned opinion by her physicians.
—DR. RODNEY DUNAWAY, MD, BOARD CERTIFIED NEUROLOGIST
For Christians around the world, Palm Sunday marks the beginning of the traditional Easter Holy Week. In 2005, however, millions of believers carried an extra burden with them into their houses of worship: The fate of Terri Schiavo was weighing heavy upon their hearts.
While the faithful were praying, they knew that the United States Senate and, in turn, the House of Representatives were deliberating if and how to protect Terri’s life.
As you’ll see in this chapter, the courageous decision by our representatives to act on Terri’s behalf was ultimately a costly one. That’s a shame. I am firmly convinced that the Congress was simply fulfilling what Thomas Jefferson called the chief purpose of government: to protect life.
Briefly, Terri’s feeding tube had been removed by a state court order on Friday, March 18. The Schindlers were devastated. Their daughter was now suffering from hunger and thirst and was going to die without a miracle. In an extraordinary move, the U.S. Senate worked on legislation that would empower the Schindlers to take their case to a federal judge for a fresh review.
To be candid, I thought getting an Act of Congress passed was a rather long shot. After all, moving legislation through both houses of Congress usually takes weeks or months—certainly not three days, especially over a holiday weekend. We were in for a surprise.
First, these public servants delayed their Easter recess to finalize the bill. On Palm Sunday afternoon, the Senate assembled on Capitol Hill and, in what was a unanimous bipartisan vote of those present, passed Senate Bill S.686. The measure immediately moved to the House of Representatives for debate and then a vote.
Meanwhile, President Bush, who was at his home in Crawford, Texas, rearranged his schedule and flew back to the White House. Rather than wait for the bill to be flown to Texas—a delay that could impact Terri’s viability—President Bush sacrificially put forth the effort to be available to add his signature immediately over the holiday. If President Bush was at the White House, he could sign the bill into law within minutes of its passage.
Sunday evening, with the president en route to Washington, D.C., lawmakers gathered at nine PM in the House of Representatives for what would be three hours of televised debate followed by a vote. The Schindlers were spending time with Terri at the hospice while we were back at the Gibbs Law Firm office drafting documents and monitoring C-SPAN on the Internet. Terri’s brother, Bobby, was on Capitol Hill visiting with every Congress member who would see him.
As we watched the House deliberate, we worked the phones to clarify any questions lawmakers on the Hill might have during the overnight session. We were in touch with dozens of senators and representatives and literally hundreds of staffers throughout the process.
Let me give you a flavor of this historic debate.
Speaking in favor of the bill, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) made an opening statement to frame what was at stake. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.686, for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo. As the House convenes this Palm Sunday, the Florida courts are enforcing a merciless directive to deprive Terri Schiavo of her right to life.
Terri Schiavo, a person whose humanity is as undeniable as her emotional responses to her family’s tender care-giving, has committed no crime and has done nothing wrong. Yet the Florida courts have brought Terri and the Nation to an ugly crossroads by commanding medical professionals sworn to protect life to end Terri’s life. This Congress must reinforce the laws and compassion for all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable.1
As you might imagine, the debate became testy at times. For example, believing that the entire effort to pass S.686 was nothing more than an appeal to conservative voters, Representative John Lewis (D-GA), a leader in the civil rights movement, said, ‘‘We are playing with a young woman’s life for the sake of politics. This is not about values. This is not about religion. It is pandering for political gain with the next election in mind.’’
Echoing that assessment, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) quipped, ‘‘The caption tonight ought to be ‘We are not doctors. We just play them on C-SPAN.’’’ Representative Phil Gingrey (R-GA), how
ever, took exception to that dim view of their motives. In what was one of the more poignant rebuttals, he said:
Mr. Speaker, in response to the remarks a few minutes ago from the gentleman from Massachusetts, I want to say that I am not sure whether or not I am on C-SPAN, but I am absolutely sure that I am not playing doctor, for indeed I am one.
Florida law prohibits the starvation of dogs, yet will allow the starvation of Terri Schiavo. Florida law does not allow for physician assisted suicide or euthanasia, nor does my compassionate, God-fearing state of Georgia.
Although I am not a neurologist by specialty, my basic courses in medical school taught me that dehydration is a horrific process. It is a process that only the cruelest tyrants in history have used to ‘‘cleanse’’ populations. The patient’s skin cracks, their nose bleeds, they vomit as the stomach lining dries out, and they have pangs of hunger and thirst. Starvation is a very painful death to which no one should be deliberately exposed.
Evidently unmoved by Representative Gingrey’s assessment, Representative Julia Carson (D-IN) appeared exasperated that she had to ‘‘run to Washington’’ after having left for home for the Easter recess.
She said, ‘‘For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are here. . . . We have no business being here. . . . It is none of our business. This is called meddling.’’ Perhaps she also missed the comments of Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ), who said:
Mr. Speaker, protecting the lives of our innocent citizens and their constitutional rights is why we are all here. The phrase in the 14th amendment encapsulates our entire Constitution. It says: ‘‘No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’’ . . .
If we as a Nation subject Terri to death while her brother, her mother and her father are forced to watch, we will scar our own souls. And we will be allowing those judges who have lost their way to drag us all one more ominous step into a darkness where the light of human compassion has gone out and the predatory survival of the fittest prevails over humanity.