Oscar Peterson dead of renal failure

[stauffenberg]

The famous jazz musician Oscar Peterson died the other day at age 82 from kidney failure.  Of course no one with access to dialysis needs to die of renal failure per se, so when they say that someone died as a result of the onset of endstage renal disease, what they mean is that he chose to die rather than endure dialysis.  I don't like the way the media cover up the fact that dialysis is so terrible a treatment that many people prefer to die rather than undergo it, since this encourages the ignorance of the general public, who assume that 'everything is just fine' because our renal failure is 'taken care of' by dialysis.  Similarly, when one of the justices of the Canadian Supreme Court a few years ago developed renal failure, he took one look at dialysis and said he would rather be dead than live that way, but the news media here covered this up and said simply that 'uremia, a rare blood disorder' had killed him. 

[Sluff]

R.I.P. Oscar Peterson

[oswald]

you said it stauffenberg.  anybody that decides to die instead of doing dialysis, in my opinion, is commiting suicide.

[fluffy]

im only 24, so dying isnt an option as much as i cant stand dialysis

[kidney4traci]

At 82 I might be inclined to say that too, at 40 there is too much to live for still.

[del]

Hey at least there is a treatment for kidney failure so most people can live a productive life!!!  Better than being told you have a disease that there is no treatment or cure for and you have no choice but die or be a vegetable for the rest of your life!!  Just my  .  I am so grateful that there is a treatment for kidney failure or I would have been a widow 10 years ago!!

[Joe Paul]

At 82 I might be inclined to say that too, at 40 there is too much to live for still.

I agree, 82 years is too long a time to go through a change such as dialysis, at-least it would be for me.

[del]

Yeah when you are older it is different.  Older people especially in their 80's and 90's don't always do well on dialysis.  But if you are young there is so much to live for.

[oswald]

it sounds like you're all saying is if your in your 80s or 90s it's not worth living on dialysis.  if thats the case, people in their 80s and 90s who are going into kidney failure should just shoot themselves.  theres nothing to live for, no sense in suffering with esrd till you die naturally from heart failure.  i don't care if you lived only a year later on dialysis, its still a year longer.  theres nothing more precious than life, and only God can decide when to end it.  just my opinion.   

[glitter]

God can decide when to end it.  just my opinion.   

If that is so - doesn't 'God' make that choice by giving you a terminal condition? Mankind made dialysis machines.

there is a very interesting thread devoted to this debate here

http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=1113.0




RIP Oscar Peterson

[Razman]

I think there is more to the story .  Oscar  Peterson also had a heart attack and  stroke in the past.  He lost the use of his left hand and it never came back to full movement .  I am sure that his heart was not very good and maybe kidney failure occurred at the end but  there  were many other problems .

  He was not a quitter.  Even after the stoke he worked hard to get his hand moving and continued to play with other professionals. Lets not judge too hard.

[del]

I agree with you boxman but in cases where people are old and sick from other things dialysis is just going to prolong their suffering.  My mom would have eventually needed dialysis but she had so many other things wrong that she would have had a miserable time on dialysis. At the center hubby was at they was one man there in his 90's and he was doing really well until he fell and broke his hip.  I agree that if you can get even a few more months out of life go for it!!  I know mom would not have lasted even a few dialysis treatments so what would have been the point of her going on dialysis.

[stauffenberg]

Whether to continue living or not is always a cost/benefit analysis.  If you are completely paralyzed from the neck down, never going to recover, fed by tubes, in constant, medically uncontrollable pain, unable to control your bladder and bowels, and spending all day just staring up and counting the cracks in the ceiling, obviously it is infinitely preferable to be dead than to continue living, and only someone with no capacity for human empathy would blame that person for committing suicide.  I cannot understand why it is so obvious that an animal in uncontrollable misery should be euthanized, but not so clear that a person should be required to live under those same circumstances.  I think people make a mistaken generalization from the infinite value we are morally required to accord another person's life when he wants to preserve it to the notion that we are also morally required to make it difficult if not impossible for a person to surrender his life if he does not want it, or to insist that he is morally obligated to continue living whether he wants to or not.

Many societies, from Ancient Greece and Rome to modern Japan, have held suicide in certain situations to be not only honorable but morally required.  The idea of some in the West that suicide is always wrong comes from the notion that God has to decide when your life ends, but this criterion is useless, since there is no rigorous way to distinguish what is his decision and what amounts to human interference with his decision.  Does he decide we die when he imposes endstage renal failure on us, and do we defy his will by having dialysis?  Do healthy people defy God's will by eating after they find that God has decided not to feed them himself?  God doesn't move my lungs in and out, so do I defy his will that I should suffocate every time I take a breath?

[Black]

There may have been a reason for listing uremia, rather than kidney failure.  The cause of death can be listed in many ways, depending on the agenda of the writer, or the needs of others.   

My father-in-law died of pneumonia ... but ... he had survived bowel cancer several years before.  After months of complaining of symptoms, which his GP had dismissed as side effects of BP meds, he was found to have an inoperable brain tumor.  A few months later it showed up in his lungs and liver.  He suffered brain damage as the tumor grew.  He had hard to control seizures, partial paralysis, lost the ability to speak, and eventually the ability to swallow.  He refused all care except that which would make him more comfortable - pain meds, seizure control, and IV hydration.  Because he had an insurance policy that would only pay for death due to cancer, pneumonia was NOT listed as the cause of death, even though the infection had caused his death a few weeks before the cancer would have completely destroyed his brain.  I believe cancer was the cause of death even though he died from pneumonia.

As to the other points raised ... he probably could have lived longer with an NG tube but he refused it.  I do not believe his refusing that "treatment" was suicide, even though it shortened his life.  BTW, he was 67.

[Zach]

Here's some interesting reading:

Kidney End-of-Life Coalition
http://www.kidneyeol.org/

Should I stop kidney dialysis?
http://www.bchealthguide.org/kbase/dp/topic/tu6095/dp.htm

 

[Psim]

If you are completely paralyzed from the neck down, never going to recover, fed by tubes, in constant, medically uncontrollable pain, unable to control your bladder and bowels, and spending all day just staring up and counting the cracks in the ceiling, obviously it is infinitely preferable to be dead than to continue living

I agree, if you're just counting the cracks. But it is also possible to be paralyzed from the neck down, etc. etc. and have a rich and satisfying (though extremely difficult) life.

Some 80 year olds are full of life and ready to take on a challenge like dialysis. Others feel ready to face the adventure of death. I wouldn't presume to judge them either way. It's hard to know which way we would chose for ourselves unless we're actually facing it. I'm just glad that seniors get to chose dialysis if they want, and don't have that decision made for them based on age.

RIP Oscar. Keep on bopping.

[okarol]

When my granny was 83 years old she was hospitalized with congestive heart failure. They got it somewhat under control but then recommended that she begin dialysis. She did it a few times and said it made her feel awful, very confused and drained. I don't even know how they did it because I never saw a neck tube or anything, and frankly, I didn't know what to look for. After she complained about wanting to stop the dialysis, we asked if she could, and they said yes. I do not recall the medical team ever saying anything like she would die without it. Somehow I kept hoping she would get better, and I don't know if anyone in my family fully understood what was going on. She went to sleep for about 3 weeks, then passed away. Looking back now I realize what it meant. (This was 1987, before I read EVERYTHING on the internet.)

[Romona]

Ever since the Teri Schivo case I have often thought about this subject. It is such a personal decision to say enough is enough. What if just being able to hear a voice or feel a touch was enough to hang on to.

I believe I had a near death experience. I didn't want to come back. I had no pain and felt an incredible warm feeling (may have been lack of oxygen). Has anyone experienced this? After I did I don't think I want to be keep alive by machines. 

[Psim]

I believe I had a near death experience. I didn't want to come back. I had no pain and felt an incredible warm feeling (may have been lack of oxygen). Has anyone experienced this?

When my father was dying he was semi-conscious and seemed quite upset and uncomfortable, but then he suddenly got this huge smile on his face and reached out his arms toward... something.... Then he just kinda collapsed and was gone.