Davy Jones gone too soon

I wasn’t around when the Monkees first landed on TV but re-runs of their shows kept me entertained as a youngster.

I loved their music and my friends and I would often sing their songs.

Of course Davy was my favourite. Such a cutie and a nice voice.

I was sad to hear of his passing of a massive heart attack at only 66. My father died the same way a few months ago, too young as well at 72. Neither one of them by outward appearances would seem to be suffering from heart disesase. And then when they’re gone, it’s such a shock. Thinking of the Jones’ family at this difficult time.

Best Monkees’ song: I Wanna Be Free

Name some others Monkees’ hits.


36 thoughts on “Davy Jones gone too soon

  1. Condolences on the passing of your father…always a profound loss, sadness and difficulty trying to make sense of it all.

    I’m sure like all who lose a loved one, we all try to make sense of the how and why.

    Were you thinking that symptoms were completely missed by his physicians and our health system?

  2. Thanks Anyone.
    It certainly is hard to make sense of. I have been questioning the coroner, who didn’t perform an autopsy.
    What I wrote to him was that our family was completely unaware he had heart disease and my questions to him were to ensure that in fact is what caused his death.
    The coroner said he is 99% sure. I’m still not, though as my dad’s father lived to be 87 and was overweight, whereas my father was not. My father’s uncles were close to 90 when they died. We figured he had great genes and many more years ahead of him.
    Now, my father had high blood pressure but he was on medication and he exercised every day and was in good shape.
    If he was a risk and we were never told that he was (nor did he think he was), I wonder why he wasn’t being monitored by his family doctor more closely?
    Now am I at risk? I wonder.

  3. Pardon me for asking a personal question but why did you not insist on an autopsy…the very least to put your mind to rest, to better understand, or as a starting off point for further inquiry and investigation that may be valuable for you, your family and community as a whole.

    Of course, I’m not sure of perhaps religious reasons, as well perhaps the conversation may still be too sensitive, and in any case, I don’t know, if it may be a moot theoretical discussion….but science demands skepticism, challenge, examination and I would think fundamentally the coroner would not/should not have opposed.

    Especially if inquest might serve to discover a lapse in other misdiagnosed or completely missed diagnoses by the doctor or institution resulting in an unfortunate trend of similar outcomes.

    Even without an autopsy, these questions deserve to be raised with the coroner—even now.

  4. A good idea is to diagram your family tree back several generations,
    noting gender [square= M the Surname carriers and circles O=F]
    Note age of death and any known cause. (working environment, other
    diseases, accident, war etc. should be noted. Any death notices saved
    from earlier deaths…Unspected patterns can appear. Born at the
    beginning of WW2, where was his family living etc.
    (Side light could be patterns in occupation – are you in journalism as
    the result of genetic tendencies ??
    –If really concerned that you, a female have inherited something from the
    male side, talk to your family doctor, and see if you can get Geneticist
    appointment.. You can discuss your concerns re your own children.
    Don’t think the role of the Coroner’s Office in an explainable death is to
    diagnose illness of the deceased at public expense, and it sounds a bit
    undignified. And you don’t want to be seen querying the care given by
    the doctor your father chose, suggesting it was not competent. Doctors
    can read too, and your surname is easily picked out. His memory can
    be tarnished by internet speculation about his intimate affairs. It is
    possible that your father knew he was at risk and didn’t burden your
    mother with the information . Off to your GP and share your own risk
    concerns. He/she may be willing to talk to Mr. Rumleski’s former care
    giver for you. Good luck.

  5. @genealogic approach…I agree with your generally good advice. Seeking medical experise is always valuable. Creating a personal geneological family tree of health is worthwhile too. There are many free automatic diagraming programs available to help one do this on the web. Frankly too, while pure speculation, I think your insight about the father perhaps knowing information that for some unknown reason he chose to withold, happens often and must be acknowledged. Even up to your suggestion of making a Geneticist appointment; I might even add that for a few bucks one can get a personalized profile with a dab of spit (see: 23andme.com) the acclaimed site founded by the biologist wife of one of the founders of Google.

    However, your credibility is instatly suspect and respect for your perspectives downgraded with your statements such as “you don’t want to be seen querying the care given by the doctor” (and in so doing, thereby) suggesting it may have been incompetent. That is preicisely the point: perhaps they were indeed incompetent, and excactly why the Coroner acting in the name of the greater public good has a duty and responsibility to consider this fact. What is so “undignified” about that?

    As for the doctor being chagrined by the query (do I need to remind you that our healthcare system involves many practitioners at all levels, from EMS, to nurse, to administrators and eveyone in between could be culpable for errors). Moreover a doctor, as a true scientist would welcome the opportunity to examine and discover what went wrong. In fact all hospitals (with and without autopsies) have post mortem discussions. The only trouble is: these notes/discussions are kept sealed away from the public…even if there may have been a finding for a grievous medical screw-up in the O.R., for example, in which case (as in every case discussion) the investigation and/or discipline is kept quite and internal. The theory being is that the traditional practice of medicine (originating in the early days of medicine, centuries ago when doctors/anatomists were mistrusted by the villagers) the Doctors met furtively among themselves, and Doctors have since reserved the right to discuss medicine among themselves, unhindered and unobstructed, away from the skeptical public non-medical community, under the guise of privacy, priviledged teaching and learning. Yes, medicine has evolved as a practice, and as art afterall, as well as now as a science, but some of the suspiscion rightly or wrongly lingers on. But in our age, the public is aware, intelligent and increasingly demands transparency. I underscore here that sometimes, the only way to force the particular post mortem notes I’ve been discussing public is through an inquest, or litigation.

    And as far as you issuing some kind of subtle restraint to anyone deciding to pursue this type of query with the medical establishment with your warning cum threat that “Doctors can read too, and your surname is easily picked out.” sounds very movie mafiosi. Doctors barely have enough time to keep up with mandated paperwork, competent doctors spend time with patients, and continuiing education, and most barely have time for their own professional journals, and certainly would barely have the time (let alone interest) to follow blogs.

  6. Genealogic approach’s caution is well received in that I do not want to discuss too much personal information about my father’s passing and perhaps tarnish the wonderful memories we have of him.
    I will warn others though that only about 30% of deaths investigated by coroners are autopsied. This information came from the coroner I talked to. This is due in part to the costs.
    I am not sure if families would be able to have an autopsy done by the investigating coroner at the family’s expense.
    Statistics show that heart disease is responsible for 29% of the deaths in Canada.
    If you are at risk, see a doctor.

    • Ms. Rumleski – could you post the Provincial Coroner Office information about the purpose of autopsy, to clear the air ?
      And also which persons are entitled to request one – is it not the executor/trustee who
      “owns” the body ? And in what circumstances is it reasonable to request one?
      Many families cringe at the thought of such interference with the body of a loved one,
      this even affect kin from enabling organ and tissue donations in some families.
      What does the Heart and Stroke group say about this “doublechecking” the cause of death – is it useful for research as with diseases of the brain ?
      Everyone should be seeing a general praticioner regularly, that’s why we developed OHIP a couple of generations back. If ‘at risk’, modify your lifestyle. Lots of free good advice around.

  7. This is from the Ontario Coroner’s Office:
    Ontario’s coroners are physicians trained to investigate sudden and unexpected deaths, as well as deaths in circumstances requiring further examination. The purpose of these investigations is to answer five questions:
    ■Who died?
    ■How did they die?
    ■When did they die?
    ■Where did they die?
    ■By what means did they die?

    Coroners also determine whether a death warrants an inquest – a public hearing during which evidence is presented to a jury of members of the community in which a person died. The jury must answer the five questions and may also make recommendations to avoid deaths in similar circumstances. Approximately 75 inquests are held each year.

    Each year in Ontario, there are approximately 80,000 deaths. The province’s coroners investigate 20,000 deaths per year

  8. Why does 1 in 4 deaths require Coroner Office investigation?
    That seems very high. All those people in the death notices
    seem to have departed without cause for concern.
    But deciding to cutting into the remains is a smaller number..

  9. I believe if a coroner cannot deduce what the cause of death is or has some doubts about the cause an autopsy is done.
    I did request one but was turned down.
    I also read that annual funding to the Office of the Chief Coroner nearly doubled from $20 million in 2003-04 to more than $36 million in 2008-09. The additional funds have been used to improve remuneration for investigating coroners and pathologists, as well as to meet other increases in the operational costs of the chief coroner’s office, the government stated.

  10. If the pupose of a public general interst blog is to keep things general, I certainly would honour this and I would be the last person to intrude into private personal realms…

    Nonetheless, a conversation like this is important and can be instructive to many.

    I’m very surprised where you share that your request was turned done. I’m very, very surprised. I’ve have never heard of this. Was the refusal in writing? What recourse does one have in those circumstances?

  11. Anyone,
    I think some of this can be helpful to others and that is why I am sharing some of it.
    I was rather shocked too that it could be turned down but the cost wasn’t justified I was told. That is why I did some followup and was also told only 30% of deaths are autopsied. (Government officials in Ontario say 25%).
    With so much going through my head I did not get the response in writing, which I should have.

  12. KR-You are brave indeed and it is appreciated.

    In my opinion. It’s not too late! Now that time has passed and things have settled down a bit, contact coroner and ask for formal letter of denial including reasons. I don’t know if they also provide a pro forma list of options for recourse, or whether you would need to avail yourself of the services of hospital social worker, ombudsman, lawyer, polital department minister or local political official.

    @ Onlooker- your question of who can request autopsy…of course it is nextof kin.

    This does not include forensic examination if external cause of death is seen or suspeted. But yes, autopsies are more common on TV shows and in crime novels than in most real life scenarios. I have witnessed at a couple of autopsies that were of criminal origin.

    As far as general practitioners and why we developed OHIP: autopsies are a valid way to judge both: the system, diagnosis and treatment–whether effective, appropriate, competent.
    “The autopsy remains the No.1 quality assurance tool for detemining cause, manner, mechanism and circumstances surrounding death.” from—New York Times, “Should you have an Autopsy Done?”, May 18, 2011.
    When you get to the story spend some time reading questions, comments and answers by experts as well as links to related stories.

  13. How does one arrange to have an autopsy performed on his/her corpse
    in Canada, in this province? Is it like setting up a pre-paid funeral
    package privately? Reduces expenses borne by Estate.
    What’s in it for the dead person ?
    What about digging up remains to check them over – can the current
    Interment Rights Holder re the family plot object to disturbing the grave?
    What are the information benefits of simply offering the body to UWO
    so student doctors can examine every detail of your loved one.

  14. If available in this Province, despite the huge cost as noted in the US material,
    should parents of young children set up Autopsy Funds, just as they do for
    future Education ?
    Ms Rumleski, where did you get the idea your mother should get your father
    examined in this way ??

  15. The American feature seems 4 years ago, emerging from discussion
    of the practice there and here of autopsies on the repatriated bodies
    of war dead – the reason here for the ‘Highway of Heroes’ drive from air
    base to Toronto Coroner prior to shipping to kin back home.
    Then it becomes promotion of hiring a pathologist to examine the remains
    of people whose death surprised relatives, possibly looking for signs of
    malpractice and a chance to make money by suing the socks off hospitals
    and medical practitioners, even by those who have no claim to support
    as Dependents from an Estate.
    How tacky can you get.

  16. @Onlooker…It is not “tacky” as you write above, to investigate the loss of a loved one caused by a medical mistake. Mistakes are rampant. 1/4 to 1/3 of death certificates are incorrect and 1/2 of autopsies produce findings of significant errors of ommission and comission and missed diagnosis. There are so, so many studies and articles that expand on this …you can look at the medical journals or just start with the lay press such as…”Medical errors killing up to 24,000 Canadians a year” CBC News/Health June 10, 2004 http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2004/06/09/med_errors040609.html

    Medical mistakes are an impotant public health issue. See: Canadian Patient Safety Institute…not to be confused with The Canadian Medical Protective Association (the organization that defends almost all doctors in Canada and ensures that legitimate cases never see the light of day in a court room—and the small fraction of egregious malpractice cases that do get through are fought tenaciously to prevent precedent-setting verdicts.

    How quickly we forget: the women in neighbouring Windsor who had beasts removed that later were found to be cancer-free; women in Quebec and Maritimes with false test results; tainted blood supply; C-dificil and other nosocomial infections that kill thousands in hospitals and nursing homes; wrong limb operations; over-taxed residents; outrageous emergency room delays; language and communication problems among doctors….

    And maybe as you say “careless living” brings untimely demise, but so also does “careless” medical practice, negligence, mistakes and misdiagnosis. Some correctible and preventable mistakes happen around the most common diseases with alarming frequency: infection, neoplasm, myocardial infarction, pulmonary emboli, cardiovascular disease, adverse drug events (erors in prescriptions–prescribing, dispensing, administering)…and so much more…Any and all of which are most devastating to patients and to their survivors, and the general public—Yes, “How tacky can you get,” when you too can be a victim someday…and your recourse, especially in Canada where serious medical malpractice claims face severe odds, opposition and imposed limitations on equitable recovery for loss, and institutional intransigence would find yourself in a sad and tough situation.

  17. Sad and tough situation? I’d be dead for heavens sake –
    I couldn’t arrange autopsy on my own corpse.
    As for my next-of-kin feeling victimized by my departure,
    perhaps they’ll see what’s in it for them in my Estate before
    crying wolf.
    Most of your examples would not be pathological situations.
    Medical mistakes are a major concern, but better to catch
    them in life.
    All this has no apparent connection to Mr. Rumleski who
    has been gone for six months so perhaps it should be
    wrapped up. Whether the Monkee death was suspect is

  18. Reply to Onlooker:
    Re: “I’d be dead for heavens sake”
    Yes, but the findings could benefit the living. Perhaps you familial line or even untold numbers of perfect strangers could benefit (and not meet your same fate) with your autopsy results ushering a new oversight to procedures and better monitoring of treatment, and overall improvement to public health policy, not to mention a possible medical discovery and beakhrough.

    “As for my next-of-kin… they’ll see what’s in it for them in my Estate before
    crying wolf.”
    If you mean they’ll be counting out the big bucks you left them and dancing on your grave…well I can’t comment…but you might consider that if your passing was clouded by some doubtful circumstance insurance policies may not pay out. Worse, what if one relative blames the other for your untimely passing…causing generational discord and perhaps eating up all of the Estate in law suits.

    “crying wolf”
    I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t think a serious discussion on a serious topic should be trivialized with the insinuation that calling for an autopsy is “crying wolf,”

    “Most of your examples would not be pathological situations.”
    Sorry, but I don’t know what you mean here. “pathological situations”-as pertaining to pathology.?

    “Medical mistakes…better to catch them in life.”
    Agreed. It would include: getting second/third opinions; knowing if your medical pactitioner has been repeatedly sued and disciplined; knowing the failure rate of a particular hospital for a particular proedure; access to hospital inspection report details; mandating all health care workers, as a condition of their employment, to maintain their vacinations—the way we insist school kids must maintain theirs as a condiion to be enrolled in school; monitoring that health care workers and institutions adhere to current protocols of infection-control (from something as basic as doctors/nurses washing their hands—to the more frequent changing of linens/drapery in ER and the use of next-generation linens with embedded copper and other anti-bacterials) and much more…
    But now, what if medical mistakes are themselves, the cause of death?
    And, you must realize that some conditions can only be determined at post mortem.

    “…gone for six months so perhaps it should be wrapped up.”
    I don’t know if there really is a time limit to critical examination of issues at hand.

  19. I’ll tell my next-of-kin of your concern.
    And am leaving a necrological family tree.
    Even if they suspect I’ve been bumped off by some medical
    accident, I hope they won’t try to get my remains on a marble
    slab for pathological inspection.
    I’ve dealt with the issue of my medical practioners reliability
    and their records should provide a complete health history.
    If they dig me up six months later, even distrurbing the other
    family members around, me, I will surely haunt them.
    Sir, my family is quite literate, in several professions including
    medicine, and I’m sure they have access to all the information
    you are posting.
    Good luck in arranging your own autopsy, remembering Executor/
    kin may not arrange for it when the time comes !

  20. One final comment to think about.
    It isn’t a matter of just looking after yourself while alive as proved by Otzi, the iceman who roamed the Alps 5,300 years ago. Recent information about Otzi has come to light.
    At 45, Otzi was predisposed to hardening of the arteries and heart disease, even though he climbed through the Alps to hunt for food daily, keeping him in great shape. He didn’t eat packaged food or consume high amounts of sodium, and sugar. He was also lactose intolerant.
    Scientists believe he would likely have had a heart attack, if he hadn’t been killed by an arrow.
    So we do our best to keep in shape and look after ourselves, but does that really help us?

  21. @Onlooker:
    When you write, “I’ve dealt with the issue of my medical practioners reliability
    and their records…” do you mean your comment—in a response within the context to which I was discussing it—that is, I was making the case that it is virtually impossible in Canada to see disciplinary records of medical practitioners, or success records of hospitals and Doctors on specific instances of treatment, nor is information on training and legal judgments easily available…do you mean here that you in fact have had access? How?

  22. @KR—Otzi mainly didn’t have access to modern diagnostic tools and therapeutic protocols…in fact, neither do most Canadians. Pitifull long waits to see specialists and few MRI’s, CAT scans, cardiac catherization etc, etc…

    Will the average Canadian have to wait 5,3000 years to discover why his/her death was entirely preventable?

  23. If he was killed by an arrow, a bullet, whatever, it doesn’t matter if he was
    physically fit – whatever that means – obese, or an 98 lb. weakling. It wasn’t
    a preventable cause of death beyond failure to avoid one’s enemies – and
    maybe starve yourself and family to death…
    Always a good idea not to join the army – evade conflict as Trudeau did –
    to be a better life insurance risk and a political future
    3300 BC was not a healthy mode of life by today’s standards which is why
    the actuaries’ life expectacy’ for the period was low compared to this era.
    Wasn’t it about 30 in c30 AD ? 60 at 1900, lower for females dying in childbirth.
    Up into the 80s at 2000 in this lucky country.
    Diagnostics help determine what the patient has or hasn’t got, but don’t cure
    or even prevent anything. Xrays even induced problems in early-using men.

    • Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
      Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
      All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
      Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
      – Pathologist report: Shell shock.

  24. @Oh Please…When you wrote above that you are “quite literate” about medicine because you have family contacts who have helped you develop you ideas, well then I’m curious what they would think about the rather simplistic statement that you then later go on to make, “Diagnostics help determine what the patient has or hasn’t got, but don’t cure or even prevent anything.”?
    Prevention and cure is a MAJOR component of a medical diagnosis.

    Perhaps a competent diagnosis using your Humpty-Dumpty example (tongue-in-cheek) would include: calcium deficiency; osteoporosis; body type suggests obesity; sitting suggests lack of activity or possible inability to walk and exercise properly, clearly there is genetic componenrt(chicken-egg); and all of this would be pointing to the preventable fact that people with said conditions and a set of predispositions shouldn’t be endangering themselves with risky behaviour i.e. balancing on walls.

  25. Prevention/mitigation and if necessary cures, follow diagnosis of
    a physical problem. Diagnosis with or without electronic tools is a
    basic requirement to see if anything is wrong. That’s why a doctor
    orders testing by specialists. Although some have been brilliant
    intuitive diagnosticians.
    Could be the patient doesn’t have the problem under investigation.
    Humptus Dumptus in muro sedat because the tide was rising. Beats
    drowning. Calculated risk.

  26. What’s your opinion on ‘warning labels’ in general: cigarettes, product labels, risk activities?

    How about use of government resources to ‘repair’ consequences after intentional and careless personal behaviour by those who do not adhere to such warnings?

    What about risks and costs to public by those who ignore warnings by doctors against driving or operating machinery (or sitting on walls) under influence of medicine.

    How about so-called ‘nanny-state’ prohibition by government against certain activities i.e. banning lawn chemicals; smoking; car idling at RR crossings; recreational drug use; swimming in high tide?

  27. I’m sure Ms. Rumleski’s followers have no interest in us our sharing views
    on this hodge podge of cliche concerns. When we see a situation where
    our input could be of value, we direct to the appropriate persons.
    And if my long-awaited email ever comes through from overseas, I won’t
    be here killing time and responding to timekilling posters.

  28. oh Please…it is never mandatory to respond to “timekilling posters”, but “sharing views” is precisely the point of a blog. Nobody is forcing you to participate in a “hodge-podge of cliche concerns”…incidently some of those brought forth of your own making.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s