Hospital Confirms Steve Jobs's Liver Transplant 402
CNet is reporting that the hospital where Apple's CEO reportedly got a liver transplant two months ago has now confirmed the truth of these reports. "Steve Jobs underwent his liver transplant about two months ago at Methodist University Hospital in Memphis, the hospital confirmed Tuesday. Jobs, who returned to work Apple's campus in Cupertino, Calif., on Monday after a six-month medical leave, 'is now recovering well and has an excellent prognosis,' according to a statement by Dr. James D. Eason, the program director of the Methodist University Hospital Transplant Institute. ... While Eason said the confirmation was being provided with Jobs's approval, he cited patient confidentially in saying that he could not reveal any further information on the specifics of Jobs's surgery."
I feel dirty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, about that "hormone imbalance"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:given he conned the transplant system, YES. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah, and Apple lied to investors and the world: the man had cancer and a failing organ, and they claimed it was a "hormone imbalance." I hope the SEC is already working on this...
A few things A) You are not entitled to know everything about Steve Jobs B) The shareholders really only need to know that someone will take the place if Jobs dies C) Steve Jobs, or any other CEO could die of any random cause at any time and D) Perhaps thats all that was confirmed at the time? And I'd say that you would probably have a hormone imbalance if you had a failing organ.
Re:I feel anger. (Score:5, Insightful)
Things will never be completely fair, but the way to make them more fair is to help everyone become more rich and powerful. The only way that can happen is if everyone is more productive: imagine if everyone accomplished in their life things similar to what Steve Jobs has done. When he got fired from, he started another company that made something cool. That's not easy, but he did it.
We don't all have to start our own companies, but if we were all just as productive in our respective fields, we probably would already have synthetic liver replacements. We might have green coal plants. We might have more efficient ways to grow food, allowing the existing farmers to focus their attention on more interesting things (oh, well we already have that one to quite an extent).
This is the way of the future, and it's where the left gets off track: instead of trying to destroy stupid bankers who get rich off naive customers, without producing anything real, the key is to educate those 'stupid' customers to create real things, and to contribute to society in real ways; then the bankers will go off and f*** themselves because everyone will see them for what they are, leeches on society.
Other CEO press releases (Score:1, Insightful)
There's no reason to be angry. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people have more money and more power and better opportunities than others, but that doesn't make it automatically unfair. Would you cry "foul" if a sitting President took the same actions as Jobs? It's not like he cheated the system (as a President probably would). Would you be angry with a friend for buying a new TV or laptop that you wanted but couldn't afford?
Practically speaking, most patients enter their name into the waiting list of the single most accessible center. The patients then arrange to live near the center as their name approaches the top of the list.
Given that all centers were equally accessible to him, he did exactly what every patient does. He is smart enough to know that a queue of 295 is significantly lower than a queue of 1615, and all other things being equal the rational choice is to go for the shortest line. If you were in Jobs's place, what would you have done differently?
What is the point of having wealth if you don't use it to your advantage? Of course it can be misused, but you're going to have to work a lot harder to argue that that is the case here.
Re:Public Figure Vs HIPAA, HIPAA Wins! (Score:3, Insightful)
You're assuming Steve told Apple and gave them permission to tell others. Regardless of SEC rules, he's under no obligation to expose his HIPAA-protected data, nor are Apple, it shareholders, or the SEC is in a position to ask. Moreover, even if someone at Apple knew of his actual condition they can't legally reveal it to others without his consent.
Most people cannot handle it (Score:5, Insightful)
Things will never be completely fair, but the way to make them more fair is to help everyone become more rich and powerful.
To paraphrase Bill Cosby (on "mind-expanding" drugs): But what if you're an asshole?
The same applies here:
Most people are the ones I see littering, driving like idiots, buying stupid junk, getting drunk and vomiting in my sunroof, etc.
Do I want them to be any more powerful than they are? Hell, no!
Re:given he conned the transplant system, YES. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh heaven forbid that someone actually uses the money they created to get better faster. Heaven forbid that some people are going to be able to afford things that others cannot. Its the same thing with health care. Because there is not an infinite supply of livers, along with an infinite supply of doctors, its true that some people might not be able to afford a liver transplant. Sure, its sad, but such is life.
Assuming the linked article in GP is true:
Why should someone be given preference on the basis of how much money / power they have? Such an idea is right at home in a country like China, but surely it flies in the face of the idea that "all men are created equal [wikipedia.org]".
I know that in Australia / New Zealand we have a strict national transplant system which means that you can only be on the transplant list for your home state. The system is specifically designed so that "Ethnicity, gender, financial, social, celebrity or political status does not affect the allocation of organs... (and) Organs are given to the person with the greatest medical need who has the best chance of successful transplantation." [transplant.org.au]
The fact is, by using the money you created to buy better drugs or treatment, you are not directly affecting anyone else. With a unique item like an organ, you are depriving someone of a chance at life.
It's a bit like the difference between 'pirating' a movie and 'pirating' a ship off the coast of somalia, in one case no-one is (directly) worse off and in the other, one party forcefully deprives the other of an item.
Anyway, I know where I'd rather get sick. :P
Re:Public Figure Vs HIPAA, HIPAA Wins! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not exactly how it went down.
On January 5th, Jobs said that he had a hormone imbalance. On January 14th, he said that he had "learned [his] health issues are more complex than [he] originally thought".
A Whipple procedure really screws up your digestive system and almost everyone afterwards has bouts of weight loss, etc. It's altogether possible that his doctors thought that was going on until metastases were discovered between Jan 5th and Jan 14th.
It's a complicated matter, you know-- how much are stockholders entitled to know versus an executive's right to privacy in his medical information.
Re:Public Figure Vs HIPAA, HIPAA Wins! (Score:1, Insightful)
This isn't your fucking business. Steve jobs is not Apple --- I don't care how silly you money hungry jerks get to feeling when you think he might be sick --- its not your fucking business. If you think your investment actually matters based on the health of a person, its probably not a good investment. Get over it and get out of the man's personal life.
And F' to your counter arguments based around MONEY. I don't care, and any sane person that isn't self interested (said 'greedy') would recognize that the man's privacy is much more valuable than all of Apple.
Re:Public Figure Vs HIPAA, HIPAA Wins! (Score:3, Insightful)
Given Apple's history when Jobs was not at the helm it's understandable that so many people would take an interest in his health. Again, given history, it's a safe bet Apple will do well while controlled by Jobs and will do quite poorly should he remove himself. Many people are aware of the past.
Personally I'm inclined to agree with you as I don't care about Apple, I should say, I don't like Apple for many of the same reasons I don't like Sony and have issues with Microsoft. Anti-competitive, litigious, and a pain to integrate. I'm not sure where the law stands on a publicly traded company when it comes to the health of it's board members though. Of course investors can do use any means to help themselves justify their investments so while Jobs may not be legally obligated to share the information it would have been a good idea as investors were being mislead. If management is changing the board is supposed to be notified and if his condition worsened and he actually died then investors may have had a valid claim that they were mislead. Of course that didn't happen and I'm sure he'll be fine and Apple will continue on like it has.
Re:I feel anger. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Me too! Honestly, guys... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like it or not Jobs is a corporate officer and a large beneficial owner of the company's stock.
If the company was withholding information that is considered material to the value of the business then it should be disclosed. Like it or not, his privacy has limits. He has voluntarily given some of it up in becoming a corporate officer. Failure to disclose can be a huge deal, especially if insiders sold stock during the time when this was not common knowledge.
In the long run it will not be a bunch of fanboys on slashdot or Apple's PR department that decide the correct level of disclosure. It will be the courts. I have little doubt that the class-action lawyers are already all over this issue. If they smell blood (or easy money) then they will pursue a case. At that point it will be up to the legal system.
Personally, I think Apple has left itself open for an expensive court case.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:shopping for short wait times (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe your grandpa was a little too busy makin the cash . . .
Re:I feel anger. (Score:3, Insightful)
Life just is not fair.
Yep. Get over it. Your only other option is to stay angry and forfeit the good things that life can give you.
Someone in the 3rd world, who can't afford to eat every day would look at you whining about potential health issues and think it's unfair that you have the luxury to be angry instead of slaving away 16 hours a day for subsistence wages, or starving for lack of work.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Steve Jobs isn't 'productive' (Score:3, Insightful)
All your rant has nothing to do with Steve Jobs' productivity. No one ever said anyone else was less of human being because they weren't CEO of a big company.
Steve Jobs has been hugely productive in the sense that the poster mentioned, his company (that he co-founded with 1 other person if I remember correctly) has produced thousands of jobs, helped revolutionize our society into a "post industrial" society (yes that has happened mostly over the last 30 years) and has influenced that society in more than just technology.
Very few people put on a desert island alone would have much impact on society... because it takes more than one person to make a society. As for the plumbers etc, sure they're very important and no body is denying that. But to say they've had the same impact as Steve Jobs is simply short-sighted.
Re:I feel anger. (Score:3, Insightful)
Due to the aforementioned cost and logistical issues, patients are effectively restricted to only 1 center. However, Steve Jobs -- with his billions of dollars -- can enter his name into all the waiting lists of all the centers. He can hire a private jet service to take him to any center immediately.
Life just is not fair."
Wow..bulletin, this just in:
Apparently being rich is better, you can afford things non-rich people cannot.
Wow, what is the big deal here? If you have the means, you have the advantages..nothing is new here, and nothing is wrong with taking advantage of your advantage. A person that works at a department store gets a discount on what they buy there...the avg person does not.
Many people, for wealth or other reasons...have an advantage over other people in some aspects of life. This is a natural way of things...some people are born smarter than others.
You last statement summed it up....NO life is NOT fair. It never has been, it never will be. Life owes you nothing, the world owes you nothing. Through luck of the draw and hard work, you can get wealth or whatever it is that gives you pleasure and advantages, money or a place at the head of the line for something. Get used to it. That's the way life is, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Unless you can change the basic nature of life on earth.
Jobs was probably in denial (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I feel anger. (Score:4, Insightful)
You guys have a private health care system. Forget about Steve Jobs having a plane so he can fly to a transplant centre and start worrying about the large portion of your population that can't afford basic health care.
Yeah, that means YOU are the rich and privileged one.
What's wrong with you people? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Conservative blind side... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, compared to the rest of the world on a quality of life basis, America does little better than some third world countries.
Wow, are you serious? Have you ever visited a third world? Your post is almost too melodramatic to respond to, but let me provide you with a little perspective.
Your measures of a high standard of living are quite interesting. You want to be able to live in the same community where you work? You know what that is in the third world? Living in a farming community. You think commuting 3 hours a day to your 8 hour job is bad? Perhaps you'd prefer to have to walk two miles up a mountain to retrieve fresh water every morning. (such was the case in a village in Honduras I visited, you had to walk up to the source because other villages along the way would pollute the stream coming down, who needs the EPA right?). Add that in to all your other daily duties. Get fresh milk from the cow, grind your morning coffee, etc and then head off to the farm. Forget such luxuries as being able to sit around (at work I presume? or before work) pondering life and responding to a post on the internet.
Having a kid a 10 years later than your father also seems to be an odd standard of life to me as well.. I suppose this is because of financial reasons, you felt you couldn't afford to have a child any earlier. It must be nice being able to choose when to have a child and still indulge in sex. Contraceptives are easy to obtain for you right? And it must be nice to be financially secure enough to be able to consider having a child. In most third worlds and in your father's time, children are more looked at as assets. You can put them to work at the early age of 10 in the field or in your shop when they're not at school (if you have that education 'luxury'). Which robs them of all that free time to play with their friends that you probably enjoyed as a kid. We do like to look enviously back to our carefree childhood don't we?
Oh and retirement, a 401k does not have to be invested in the 'gambling' stock market. Provided government doesn't usurp bondholder's rights, you should really have a percentage of your age invested in bonds (50 year old, 50% allocation) its much safer, but I'm not writing this to give financial advise. If you don't want to gamble you could have started saving early and just put it all in a FDIC insured savings account. What a luxury, FDIC insurance, you know in many countries people don't even trust putting their money in a bank savings account? Because in the past their savings have been wiped clean by either corrupt governments, local warlords, or bad banking practices. Keeping all your money in a mattress sounds like a much better idea. And retirement plans? Aside for the brief period in US history where pensions were prevalant (although as we are seeing now, it is completely unsustainable) you know what retirement plans were here and in the rest of the world? Your children! But no, you wouldn't want to put that burden on your kids.
I hope you enjoyed your 4 years in college (most do). You know in South Korea (not really a third world) military service is compusoury for all men over the age of 18? I don't know how old your father is, but I bet he had to worry about being drafted and possibly killed in a war too. I'm sure glad I don't have to worry about that.
Healthcare? Sure your father probably had more affordable health care.. but you know why? Because back then you didn't have all the life extending options we have today. Liver transplants? Chemotherapy? Dialysis? I bet your healthcare could be quite affordable if you got the same quality and services in healthcare that your father did.
I could go on and on, but the fact is, we are living with less worries and greater standard of life than anytime before in history. Stop smell the roses, and enjoy what you have, because it could be a LOT worse.
Re:I feel anger. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also:
Technologically, the limitations of the MacOS architecture (and its Microsoft imitations) held back the industry for at least a decade.
Yeah, that would be the decade when Jobs was out of Apple (Mac OS was arguably the best PC OS until Jobs left in 1985) and that during this time he went on to create NeXT which OS went on to be the basis of Mac OS X when he got back at Apple.
Not like this point had to be made, but I felt like making it anyways.
Re:Conservative blind side... (Score:4, Insightful)
Posting anonymously to avoid undoing moderation, but this just had to be answered. You're making a pretty serious error in logic here:
In the 90's, the conservative harping about the loss of morality fell on deaf ears. Who cared if couples opted not to marry and have children? Who cared if corporations became greedy? (Greed was good, right?) Now we reap the harvest we've sown: corporate greed has reduced the effective wages to poverty level, and we're now finding that the economic boom dependent on an ever increasing consumer base is unsustainable, largely in part because the necessary consumers were never born.
Those same conservatives that were screaming about unmarried couples (an issue to social conservatives) were pushing for deregulation of corporations (an issue for fiscal conservatives). You're conflating a concern with social morality (gay marriage, marriage of couples that live together and/or have children, abortion, etc) with a concern for corporate morality. In general (and there are exceptions on both sides) liberals tend to more less concerned about the latter, but more concerned about the former, while conservatives are the opposite.
Liberals (in general) don't care whether or not a couple is married, because their marriage or lack of one is not impacting society in general. It's a matter of personal choice. I lived with my wife for 6 years before we formalized the arrangement with a wedding. How were we hurting anyone? By contrast liberals (in general) care whether a company is trying to screw its customers, because that problem DOES impact society in general. It's hurting the customer or customers being screwed in an unfair way.
Conservatives (in general) care whether a couple is married, because for them to live together otherwise is a violation of the moral code of the conservative. They seem willing to make and enforce laws that require individuals to follow the moral code that they themselves have chosen to follow. Hence laws against gay marriage. It won't hurt society in any way to let couples of the same sex join together in the same way that couples of the opposite sex do, but it's against a moral code that conservative believe in so they want to stop it. Conservatives also (in general), I will grant you, care whether a company is screwing it's customers, but they seems to care about this in a abstract way. They might say it's immoral, but because they believe that market forces will eventually weed out the immoral or unfair in the market they are unwilling to directly legislate against it much of the time.
"Morality" is not really the problem here. Everyone has different ideas of what is or is not moral. I have no moral problem with two people marrying or not marrying as they they see fit, but you clearly do. The problem is that our government is not trying to do the most good for the most people. It's trying to do the most good for big companies and hoping that THEY will do the most good for the most people. Companies, however, are almost totally without either morals or scruples. It's a side affect of being made up of too many people for anyone of them to take responsibility for the actions of the whole.
Re:Conservative blind side... (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, I'll try to say this is in the least trollish way possible: you completely missed the point of my post. The problem is not that I don't have enough toys. I could honestly care less - a $30 microcontroller kit is more entertaining to me than the big-screen plasma tvs everyone seems to think they need. The problem is that children are far more expensive from a resource perspective than that iPhone or new laptop you've got your eye on. Sure, I could forego a new laptop this year. But I'd have to forego a laptop upgrade for 2 decades to make up the cost of a normal childbirth. And that's after insurance pays! And I haven't even begun to talk about the cost of a four bedroom place in the Chicago area. But I'm lucky, compared to some; I've heard of the 50 year mortgages people are taking in California; of making $100,000 a year and being able to afford nothing more than a single bedroom apartment.
Some people just don't get it. My father did have a higher standard of living than I did. He didn't *have* to spend half his income on housing, and yes, he was frugal. He didn't have to enlist in the Army to pay for college - in fact, he didn't even have to finish his degree. He had the resources to start a family when he was young; I didn't.
But here I am, having served my country, having made the grade in college, having done all of the things my parents' generation thought necessary to have a successful life, and yet, I have a lower standard of living than they. My parents bought food at the national chain stores; I buy mine at the discount stores (Aldi). My parents bought a new car every few years; I still drive a 10 year old truck. And the worst of it? I cannot afford to buy the very house in which I was raised.
I can understand the suburbanite college kid whining about how he can't afford his a Lexus. But I'm not that person. Instead, I'm trying to provide the same lifestyle for my children that I grew up with, and finding that it is difficult, if not impossible. Not being able to provide for your family is a much different position than not having the toys you'd like, and there's nothing spoiled or unseemly about wanting to give your children what you have received yourself. But I can't even do that, unfortunately.
The fact that I can afford a new laptop every year is little consolation when I can't afford the basic necessities of life. What is oddest about my situation is that I learned to be frugal - to forgo the things I wanted so as to afford the things I need. But now, the things I want are of such little expense compared to the needs of my family that it hardly makes a difference, if it all.
Re:I feel anger. (Score:1, Insightful)
Troll please. I'm not even reading the rest of this comment.
Then you're a f*cking idiot. Go get the facts and read up on Smalltalk, Stepstone, and the history of Objective-C.