Question about Eric Dolphy -

[JSngry]

I've yet to see any evidence to contradict that the doctors initially assumed an overdose and left him alone to come out of it.

That assumption was time lost.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

My wife had several family members on her mother's side die from diabetes. The disease was not well understood back then, nor was treatment as widespread as it is today. My mother-in-law told me that her sister going blind was how they found out that she had diabetes and that she died before they could get it under control. I think that was only the late 50's.

[Rabshakeh]

54 minutes ago, JSngry said:

The doctors finally figured out that it was diabetes and not an overdose, is that the story here?

It seems to be.

I don't think there is enough clarity to say that this is the story.

[JSngry]

There are people on record saying that. The issue is not whether or not the doctors eventually diagnosed the diabetes, it's clear that they did.

The issue is when they got busy doing that, and that's where the deadly assumption that this was just an overdose that would take care of itself comes into play. Lost time.

There's no conflict to these two scenarios, and there's people who claim each.

[Rabshakeh]

2 minutes ago, JSngry said:

There are people on record saying that. The issue is not whether or not the doctors eventually diagnosed the diabetes, it's clear that they did.

The issue is when they got busy doing that, and that's where the deadly assumption that this was just an overdose that would take care of itself comes into play. Lost time.

There's no conflict to these two scenarios, and there's people who claim each.

There are also people on record saying the opposite.

I don't know how it is possible to conclude that the doctors did delay diabetes treatment, whether based on an incorrect assumption or otherwise, or that it was the delay that killed him, rather than, e.g., the preceding heart attack, or the effect of treating the diabetes. 

[JSngry]

Assuming an overdose, regardless of the outcome, is not good medical practice now, not wads it then.

I've yet to see any claims that the doctors got busy as soon as they brought him in. Who is saying that?

[Rabshakeh]

3 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Assuming an overdose, regardless of the outcome, is not good medical practice now, not wads it then.

I've yet to see any claims that the doctors got busy as soon as they brought him in. Who is saying that?

The other reports, which are in the thread.

[ghost of miles]

22 hours ago, clifford_thornton said:

Karl Berger has said that he and Ingrid were with him at the hospital where he died. Berger has repeated the "junkie" story and if he was there, it must have a kernel of truth. My understanding is that they at first didn't realize what was going on and by the time they figured it out, it was too late.

Prince Lasha told me that Dolphy was drinking watered down honey constantly. 

So we have one eyewitness account that validates the “they thought he was a junkie” account, which doesn’t seem like such a wildly implausible scenario in the first place. I’m all in favor of historical accuracy and not bending truth to fit an ideological agenda, but the agenda of the initial post here seems to be an attempt to remove stereotyping, racism etc from the historical equation, as if the story had been cooked up in the first place. For now, we have the account of a witness and fellow musician that seems to confirm the “he’s a junkie ODing” story—and unless somebody wants to challenge Karl Berger’s credibility, why should it be questioned? What is the point? 

[JSngry]

3 minutes ago, ghost of miles said:

So we have one eyewitness account that validates the “they thought he was a junkie” account, which doesn’t seem like such a wildly implausible scenario in the first place. I’m all in favor of historical accuracy and not bending truth to fit an ideological agenda, but the agenda of the initial post here seems to be an attempt to remove stereotyping, racism etc from the historical equation, as if the story had been cooked up in the first place. For now, we have the account of a witness and fellow musician that seems to confirm the “he’s a junkie ODing” story—and unless somebody wants to challenge Karl Berger’s credibility, why should it be questioned? What is the point? 

 

I'm with you, Daviv.

One guy in that film was the tour manager(?) and he was in charge of carting Eric back and forth from the hotel. He says that he just assumed that is was just a jazz musician overdosing.

Several other people in that film corroborate the doctors assuming that this was just a drug overdose.

Who actually took him in? That male nurse guy mentioned above, I did not see him in that movie. Please advise.

I'm looking at the timelines in all these stories and not finding anything to contradict a timeline where the doctors delayed a proactive diagnostic for a little (duration unknown) while due to an assumption of overdose. And then when they did get busy, they found the diabetes and proceeded accordingly (even if they did use some kind of super-insulin that may or may not have delivered the final blow). This is a timeline that square all accounts.

This is how Sherlock Holmes would do it, and Sherlock is the gold standard imo.

 

[Rabshakeh]

Is the doctor meant to have said to Karl Berger or the tour manager that he was not treating Dolphy because Dolphy was probably just a drug user having an overdose? Sorry if I have missed this point. I have not watched the film but none of the written answers above have indicated this.

If that was the case, then I would be inclined to believe the usually repeated story, notwithstanding what the cause of death or the hospitals report might say.

Edited June 21 by Rabshakeh

[JSngry]

More than a few people have recounted the "just an overdose" story. Karl Berger is claiming that he was "in the room".

Nobody that I have seen is claiming that the doctors immediately went right to work on a diagnosis.

If there are any credible account claiming this, I'm certainly open to them. But there are none, not that I'm aware.

Timeline is the point.

[Rabshakeh]

The above thread includes first and second accounts that, if true, contradict the standard story. It is not the case that all or most of the evidence points one way, as you are saying.

There are three opposing accounts, all based on first and second hand evidence. These are that:

- Dolphy arrived at hospital in a diabetic coma (undiagnosed at point of admission), the doctors do not treat it quickly enough, either because of racialised assumptions about drug use or for other reasons, and as a result Dolphy dies or is treated too late and dies;

- Dolphy arrived at hospital already dying from a heart attack or other collapse of his circulatory system brought on by mismanagement of his undiagnosed diabetes. That would absolve the doctors of both responsibility for the death and also the charges of racism (and we should therefore be wary of it coming from the hospital). It is nonetheless as credible as the other accounts on its face, given that the fact that Dolphy had been very sick for days and then had a collapse is the closest thing to a shared fact pattern uniting the different accounts; and 

- Dolphy arrived in a diabetic coma, the doctors correctly diagnose it (after a delay or without a delay) but then accidentally kill him by incorrectly administering the wrong kind of insulin, such that it was specifically the treatment / intervention by the medical professionals that was responsible for Dolphy's death. 

As to Berger, if he was told by the doctor that Dolphy would not be treated because it was probably just a drug overdose (or if that was on the patient notes), then his version of events certainly adds weight to the racism allegations and makes it appear that the third account (that it was the hospital treatment that killed Dolphy) is not correct. However, it would not determine between the other two accounts (Berger is not a medical professional).

If he was not told that, then it is just speculation on his part. If that is the case, then it is hardly as credible as an admission by the hospital against its own interests. 

The fact that it may have been repeated would not stop it from being either just one of several contradictory statements or (if there were no statements made to the effect alleged) being just speculative hearsay.

[Onxidlib]

54 minutes ago, JSngry said:

 

I'm with you, Daviv.

One guy in that film was the tour manager(?) and he was in charge of carting Eric back and forth from the hotel. He says that he just assumed that is was just a jazz musician overdosing.

Several other people in that film corroborate the doctors assuming that this was just a drug overdose.

Who actually took him in? That male nurse guy mentioned above, I did not see him in that movie. Please advise.

I'm looking at the timelines in all these stories and not finding anything to contradict a timeline where the doctors delayed a proactive diagnostic for a little (duration unknown) while due to an assumption of overdose. And then when they did get busy, they found the diabetes and proceeded accordingly (even if they did use some kind of super-insulin that may or may not have delivered the final blow). This is a timeline that square all accounts.

This is how Sherlock Holmes would do it, and Sherlock is the gold standard imo.

 

I watched the documentary again - and did not see the male nurse... Don't know what's up with me .. I wasn't drunk when I saw it the first time. So sorry for giving obviously false informations. However the guy who took Eric Dolphy to the hospital was not a tour manager but a guy who - sometimes - did work for the club Dolphy was scheduled to play at this day. The English translation "tour manager" in the subtitles s misleading.

[Rabshakeh]

Some further points to note, on the edit:

- There does not seem to have been any substantive internal investigation, let alone an independent investigation.

- Doesn't look like anyone alleged negligence at the time, although I accept that medical negligence actions were not that common in Europe in those days.

- The first hand evidence includes patient notes (which no one seems to have made the effort to check) and the hospital's formal documentation. 

- Conditions being what they were in Europe 1964, I would not rush to assume that a hospital would seek to cover  up racist statements or failings in the way that it might have attempted to have covered up medical failings. And I would not be surprised if racist statements were made expressly, which is why I think that there might be something in Berger's account, but i really don't know enough to say whether it is something that was said or just speculation on Berger's part.

I still do not think that there is any reason to assert that the evidence points clearly in one way or another.

Edited June 21 by Rabshakeh

[Onxidlib]

54 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:

Is the doctor meant to have said to Karl Berger or the tour manager that he was not treating Dolphy because Dolphy was probably just a drug user having an overdose? Sorry if I have missed this point. I have not watched the film but none of the written answers above have indicated this.

If that was the case, then I would be inclined to believe the usually repeated story, notwithstanding what the cause of death or the hospitals report might say.

The "tour manager" did believe that Dolphy was - maybe(!) -on drugs because he was a black musician! That's what he says. This was before Dolphy was taken to the hospital.

[JSngry]

Again - nobody is making claim that Dolphy came into the hospital - obviously in a bad way - and that the doctors immediately jumped up, went to work, and didn't stop until the diabetes was diagnosed.

1 minute ago, Onxidlib said:

The "tour manager" did believe that Dolphy was - maybe(!) -on drugs because he was a black musician! That's what he says. This was before Dolphy was taken to the hospital.

Yeah, that's who he was and what I heard him say.

[Rabshakeh]

4 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Again - nobody is making claim that Dolphy came into the hospital - obviously in a bad way - and that the doctors immediately jumped up, went to work, and didn't stop until the diabetes was diagnosed.

I do not understand what your grounds are for saying this. 

Using the above three accounts, the second and third accounts do allow for an immediate diagnosis of diabetes and commencement of treatment.

It is only the delay account that relies upon a delay in treatment either happening or killing him.

Edited June 21 by Rabshakeh

[JSngry]

3 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:

I do not understand what your grounds are for saying this. 

Using the above three accounts, the second and third accounts do allow for an immediate diagnosis of diabetes and commencement of treatment.

It is only the delay account that relies upon a delay in treatment either happening or killing him.

They allow for it, but they do not prove or depend on it to be true.

Several "accusations" have been made that have not been able to refute. "They found the diabetes" is not the issue. That's a given. Same for "He was already dyng anyway."

The only variable in the equation is simply how soon did the doctors go to work. There are several explicit claims that it was not immediately. There are no claims to the contrary, just speculations that, uh, sure they did that are based on....what, exactly?

Maybe the bigger insult is that nobody made enough noise about the death to get an official explanation from whatever the standard investigative procedure then would have been. No idea what that would have looked like, thoguh, time/place/people.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

According to the American Diabetes Association, insulin caused allergic reactions in many people until a synthetic version hit the market in 1982. Dolphy's death could have been caused by an allergic reaction to the insulin they gave him. It's all just speculation now.

[Niko]

I only watched bits and pieces of the movie, and one moment that I noticed was one of the two guys from the club saying that he thought Dolphy might be on drugs from the way he was moving, the glassy eyes... And I wouldn't just want to call that racist stereotype - after all, I suppose those nights when the American guest stars didn't deliver on stage due to intoxication just happened from time to time.... It's easy to imagine that those who brought him to the hospital said "and by the way, we suspect it could be a drug overdose" with only good intentions... We have all read books about how Dolphy would never even touch a glass of wine - but those books weren't around back in the day

[Rabshakeh]

9 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Maybe the bigger insult is that nobody made enough noise about the death to get an official explanation from whatever the standard investigative procedure then would have been. No idea what that would have looked like, though, time/place/people.

Yeah. This is really getting to me. 

Feels like no one cared enough. Either because he was just some jazz guy, or because they thought enquiry was hopeless, or because it was more important to "print the legend", as the film has it.

[JSngry]

I kinda bristle at the notion of "print the legend" in this case, because the real story as we know it raises real questions that we can't easily answer, or even answer at all. Not at all a "legend".

21 minutes ago, Niko said:

.... It's easy to imagine that those who brought him to the hospital said "and by the way, we suspect it could be a drug overdose" with only good intentions...

To which any competent doctor would respond with ok, we'll look at that, and oh by the way, are you a doctor?

But doctors can be just as lazy as anybody...