Slashdot Mirror
Medical Health Disclosure vs. Steve Jobs' Privacy
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is saying that Steve Jobs doesn't have cancer, but that he needs to disclose all the information about his medical condition so investors can decide. Gizmodo's strong rebuttal says that everyone has the right to keep medical records confidential. They argue that, if prominent US presidents legally kept their grave illnesses secret — even while the security of the country was at stake — a simple CEO should be able to do the same: 'Steve Jobs has the right to keep his medical records private for as long as he wants. Like FDR. Like JFK. Like any single person in this country and the world. It's our right, as humans, to do so.'"
Everyone else found out about JFK's medical problem the same time he did.
And surely the public/investors in view of a lack of a full disclosure have the right to sack/not elect politicians/CEO's who will not disclose potentially pertinent information about their ability to work in their role.
Steve Job's health records should be burned into the firmware of all new ipods.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
'Steve Jobs has the right to keep his medical records private for as long as he wants. Like FDR. Like JFK. Like any single person in this country and the world. It's our right, as humans, to do so.
Sure, sounds great. Someone should tell the insurance companies and medical transcription outfits about that, though. They have no problem spreading our health information all over the goddamn planet.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Steve Jobs issued a very brief press release:
! iSick
Table-ized A.I.
It's called Microsoft.
is that my money is invested in apple, not the usa.
Steve Jobs may or may not have cancer. He also may or may not get shot by a crazed Windows fanboy tomorrow. Make the investment in Apple with full knowledge that there is a risk, and estimate what the risk is. Or decide that the risk is too high and don't.
It's not up to Steve Jobs to make it easy for you!
I think that Steve Jobs shouldn't have to reveal or talk about anything personal to his company or investors. "He could die, and our stocks could fall," yeah and he could get hit by a car too; that's the reasoning I see them using. I'm sure you can find other random arguments against secrecy, but seriously, is nothing private anymore? Sure if he suddenly dies of cancer everyone will jump ship, but that's only because no one knows who else can invent things at Apple - they need to put other people on display.
When Steve Jobs sneezes, Apple catches a cold!
...When shareholder value is at stake.
No surprise. It's the Business section of a newspaper. All the writers are brainwashed into the cult of "maximize returns for the shareholders." Nothing else is allowed to matter.
As the personal health history of every single executive of IBM named in their own 10-K is made public.
This is why they say that investing involves risk. There are lots of things you don't know and pretty much have to bet on.
Let's see these investors disclose all the details about their internal operations first.
Besides, if Apple can't survive without Steve Jobs, then neither he nor the board is doing their job. Oh, wait, long-term investment... nobody does that any more. Right, sorry, my bad.
... health of a single individual, it's probably a bad investment.
Even if a CEO had cancel or some other health issue, it isn't necessarily going to be debilitating condition. Business and political leaders can be skating at the edge of death, but they can still be good leaders.
I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Steve, you're no Jack Kennedy. Besides, we all know its a gigantic growth on his ego gland, he has been hiding it behind turtle necks for years.
But wont national insurance take that away to some degree? Sure the records will be private, but still part of the governments database systems somewhere. Given how the government has abused info before I shudder to think what they may do with that information in addition to everything else they have. I also bet that random employees will browse that (and some may sell to tabloids and other media outlets) just as they do passport files and whatever else they get their grubbies on.
If Dubya can fail to disclose his obvious developmental disability all these years then certainly everyone else is entitled to privacy, too.
He has a minor speech impediment. BFD.
It's crap like this that makes life a living hell for people with speech impediments. It's one of the last few forms of discrimination allowed by society.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
How many of you take the insurance discount at work for submitting to a health screening? About two
years ago I had a HR weenie harping on me to take the screening for the discount...up until the point
I told him to pack sand. Right about the time that was going on was when I got notified from the VA
that my medical records had been stolen.
Hell I would not tell my own wife or employer much less the public.
No Steve you should not tell anyone, it is none of their business.
Got Code?
Absolutely right that CEOs, like presidents, have every right to keep their medical problems to themselves. Imagine if Bob Dole had won the election in 1996?
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Allergy to high-velocity injections of lead is actually quite common, but the condition is often diagnosed when it's already too late.
But weren't those guys married?
What?
Given the amount of time Jobs has been back at Apple, and proof of his long term planning strategies (Think OSX86 since 2002 or so? someone remind me), shouldn't investors be looking at Apple for more such long term strategies already underway instead of simply basing their decision on Jobs alone?
I know Jobs is a victim of his own success, with everyone wanting to pry into his private life to see if the "second coming" of Apple will end with him or not. But surely anyone paying attention to what Apple has been doing can use that information to make smart investment decisions instead of basing it all on one man?
There are some very talented people at Apple from what I've seen (people I've met who work at corporate on iphone dev, macosx dev, , etc). I would be surprised if Jobs didnt put in place project leads and managers with vision to supplement or augment his own.
Remember this is not like when Jobs got kicked out because Apple needed to "grow up" and Jobs being ousted as the "not grown up enough" element in the company. He's proven himself very capable of getting very good people together to accomplish the projects and goals in mind.
Personally, I feel that if Jobs stepped down Apple could continue to do quite well. Several years ago, I wouldn't be so sure. I'd sure be interested in someone put some time into evaluating possible choices to take over Jobs job :)
.... ... }
int main (void) {
...next they'll be trying to tell us Reality Distortion Fields cause cancer!
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
I was not referring to that. Jeesh!
Caveat Utilitor
I'm not sure I know what is or isn't owed to the public in the way of medical disclosure, but it's inappropriate to single out Apple and Steve Jobs as if they were an egregious case. Holding back adverse medical information about CEOs, or "spinning" it to minimize it, is par for the course.
One example which comes to mind is the diagnosis of Dr. An Wang with esophageal cancer. Dr. Wang was at least as important to Wang Laboratories, Inc. as Steve Jobs is to Apple, and esophageal cancer is a very dangerous form of cancer.
But when Dr. Wang failed to make a scheduled appearance to address a meeting of the Boston Computer Society, a company representative explained that he was suffering from "a sore throat."
A quick database check of The Boston Globe indicates that his true condition was not disclosed until March 9, 1990, sixteen days before his death on March 25th, even though he had had surgery for his cancer eight months earlier. Indeed, it can be said that it was not even disclosed on March 9th, as a Wang spokesperson was quoted as saying "The diagnosis of his present condition is not available at this time."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Gizmodo's strong rebuttal says that everyone has the right to keep medical records confidential.
While this may be true, it does not naturally follow that exercising a right should have no negative consequences, such as a fall in the price of a security. A "right" in this sense pertains to the force of law, not a public relations disaster within the investment community.
I mean, Steve is free to keep his personal secrets, and I'm free not to buy stock in his company. His business is his business, but my business is my business too, and if I'm investing in his company, our businesses overlap. How could this possibly be redressed? What possible legal remedy could compel me to invest in companies without (rather stupidly) taking possibly unhealthy CEOs into account? Tax breaks?
People don't understand what a right is. It doesn't mean nothing bad is legally allowed to happen if you make a choice you are entitled to make. A right circumscribes the limits of legislation. And no law is forcing Steve Jobs to expose his medical history, nor does any corporation or individual have the power to legally force him to release this information. Apple cannot cite stock price losses as damages. They are also not required to present his health information to any outside entity, in accordance with his legal rights to protect that information. But I don't see where they are. He's reacting to negative articles and political developments both inside and outside his company, and his legal rights have nothing to do with these things.
He does have an informal "right" to be sick without people reacting to his secrecy about it. But this is not a right in a legal sense, because violating it is not a criminal act any more than just being a jerk.
Is there anyone who thinks that Steve Jobs should be forced to disclose his health info? The NYTimes article explicitly denies taking that position:
"I'm not suggesting that the S.E.C. should go after Apple for keeping mum about Mr. Jobs's health."
The real question here is whether disclosure is the right thing to do. "FDR didn't do it so it must be wrong!" That just doesn't cut it. FDR is not the ultimate moral benchmark. Besides, what works for a US President in a time of global strife does not necessarily work for the CEO of Apple.
The poor dears!
Is Apple's commercial value due to one talented leader and millions of drones?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
It's our right, as humans, to do so.
No when you are a public figure and so much people (users and investors, depends on you.
Recave
The comment above is a troll, plain and simple. It's nothing but baseless, speculative charges aimed at Republicans. There simply is no factual evidence to support them.
It's the definition of a troll comment. If the moderators do their jobs right, the above should be modded -1 troll. Otherwise they are flatly abusing their power.
You might want to know about your surgeon's Parkinsons.
His inability to speak at the same level as intelligent people has nothing to do with his mental defects. His cornball accent and mannerisms are deliberate.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Investing is a risk, that's part of why it gets rewarded, disclosing personal information to help investors hedge their bets can be done at your leisure or not at all. There seems to be a strong line of thought in this country that investors should be rewarded even if they aren't taking any risks. See: Colorado State Mortgage laws, which all but guarantee repayment. If you want to make money by doing nothing, you have to accept the risk and not get all bent out of shape when other people aren't interested in helping you mitigate that risk.
But the stock holders also have the right to bail out due to rumors.
Steve has to decide which is more important to him, privacy or stockholders.
If i had his bank account, i think id choose privacy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
From TFA:
This particular slime-ball obviously uses some definition of "off the record" that I am unaware of.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
So, why did I have to do a medical when I joined my current place of employment?
If "the man" (ie investors) say they need you to do a medical, then tough. But his records shouldnt be public knowledge.
I'm suffering from Apple News Overload...
If Steve grew a fourth testicle, could bend spoons with his mind, and released another iPhone from his rectum, I don't think I would read the news story.
And just to beat you all to the punch:
"Rectum? Damn near killed him!"
Ah. It all makes sense now.
Arbitrary invading sovereign nations was caused by a speech impediment.
---- Sig. gone.
You must be new here... How much did that user ID cost you?
I don't think he realized that because he is Dubya masquerading as a slashdotter. Everything you know is wrong.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
he's such a mental midget that he only managed to be elected to the office twice!
Okay, you're correct. I should not have said "a person's health is no-one else's business, ever, period", that's just obviously not true. We want the police, airline pilots, cab drivers, surgeons, etc to be free of certain medical issues for the sake of the public safety. In fact, for quite a few jobs it gets a bit tricky to draw the line. But CEO isn't really one of them, at least IMO.
Caveat Utilitor
He has a minor speech impediment. BFD.
Yeah. It's called 'stupidity'. It impairs his speech greatly.
Who says they had any such right, especially FDR who knew perfectly well he was dying? They simply DID it, with collusion from the press...and if FDR's brain had blown out twelve weeks earlier, there would have been no Cold War. The Russians wouldn't have needed one.
rj
That Apple is nothing without Steve Jobs?
Eventually Jobs will die. Apple, as a corporation, does not die.
Apple stockholders might want to look into getting the mortal out of their immortal corporation, if they want Apple to last.
Well, I guess PR can occasionally be a two edged sword, and we're kinda seeing the back edge of it now.
Apple's PR machine is telling everyone that only Steve Jobs matters. X got finished only because The Great Man Steve Jobs yelled at the engineers to get it done already. (Apparently the lazy louts weren't getting anywhere without Him personally throwing tantrums;) Y was tested personally by The Great Man, and because He said where the buttons should go or how loud the volume should go. (Obviously, nobody else figured out usability around those parts;) Z happened only because The Great Man _didn't_ yell at the engineers for a change, and just scared them with his iciest stare. (No, seriously, apparently they weren't getting anywhere before that, and suddenly all was on track afterwards.) Etc.
The message the ouside world is fed, repeatedly, is that he's the big genius there and everything only happens because of him.
So, you know, I would worry too if (A) I'd actually believe that, and (B) had any Apple shares.
It's a bit, you know, like betting a bunch of money on the Sixtine Chapel back then, and then hearing half-way through that Michelangelo is terminally ill. Damn right you'd worry.
Or a bit as if the Catholic Church announced that God is fed up and everyone up there is moving to another universe as their next project. I'm sure the question would come, "well, without Him, what's the point of staying with this church any more?" ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
But seriously. a person's health is no-one else's business, ever, period.
WRONG! If I'm going to have a child with someone, you're damn sure I want to know if they have any STDs. And that's just the obvious disclosure. If I'm laying my not-yet-conceived child's entire future on the line, in the hands of someone else, I want to know what they know. Period. It's the least I can do for my child. The least...and that doesn't even consider the risks to my own health.
My investors want to know how healthy I am. How dare they find out what blood type I am and whether or not I've ever had broken bones or if I'm allergic to penicillin. Life is so unfair! Truth is I do have cancer but just shut up cuz I'm gonna play it off on privacy so that nobody knows if I've had the chicken pox or not!
Indeed. A CEO sets the strategic direction of a company, right? And strategy tends to be something with a longer term outlook. Unlike a COO, who is responsible for the day-to-day operations of a company, if your CEO becomes incapacitated, you will have a little time to find a replacement before the company goes under. True, finding as good a replacement might be tricky, especially somebody with as good a success track record as Steve Jobs, but it's not impossible and more than a few people would be attracted to working with the team that Steve J. has assembled.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Unless his contract says otherwise. And no investor should be stupid enough to hold Apple shares while he does so.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Anyone with $35 and the right Internet Detective Web Site can do a complete background check on Steve Jobs or anyone else and get all court case, criminal history, medical history, work history, and credit history just by knowing his work phone, email address, home phone, house address, work address, any one of those. Why should shareholders get that info for free, when they can pay for it like many employers do for employees of the company they work for or own stock in?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Forgot to click "Post Anonymously" did you? I guess your GNAA identity has been exposed. Time to give up this terrible karma UID, don't you think?
He meant to, but kept forgetting.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Steve Jobs has every right to keep his medical condition secret.
The only thing the investors have a right to know is the succession plan that Apple has in place should Jobs have to step down.
Yes! And in completely fair and undisputed elections...I mean is he *really* the best person the USA could come up with to "lead" the country?
Debian FTW
>We want the police, airline pilots, cab drivers, surgeons, etc to be free of certain medical issues
>for the sake of the public safety.
Who decides which medical issues are "certain?"
And to whom is the disclosure made?
The shareholders, customers, or any citizen who wants to know? No. Senior level executives and the board? Probably not. A disinterested third party who is compelled by law to limit disclosure at the risk of loss of medical licenses, enormous fines, and prison time? I could accept that. If there were very clear criteria, and judgments beyond merely "fly or no fly", and there was a disinterested party whose sole function was as a healthcare practitioner (and tightly bound to confidentiality!), then yes, I can accept certain limited interpretations of the things you said.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
'nuff said
+1 fashionably cynical
If you only had an inclination as to the integrity of the individuals that Cerner hires to administrate the devices in which this confidential data is held, you would be concerned to!
Of course there can be negative consequences as a result of choosing not to divulge some information some investors consider material.
At question is more - can Apple be sued by shareholders for failing to reveal information? I would agree with Gizmodo that the answer is no. As you say investors can choose to invest or sell as they wish, if they are so sure Apple would be in trouble without Jobs then they should not invest in the first place, since other things besides cancer happen to people...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Even the healthy can die. It's just a matter of when, where and how.
8==8 Bones 8==8
It's already done. I know for a fact that cops, cab drivers, & aircraft pilots are required to pass a physical exam. This isn't a new thing.
he's such a mental midget that he only managed to be elected to the office twice!
And he managed to choose a president for a dad and a Governor for a brother and a family oil business started by his predecessors. If only we all could possess such prescience.
Just callin' it like I see it.
You know what would really clear this complex issue up for the American people? Compelling President Bartlett to testify before Congress. Put him in front of the cameras to talk about his illness so that we, as a nation, can feel safe again.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
to make money for other people. Steve Jobs is not a financial 'asset' that needs to let go of his own persona for some people who put money in that corporation to make assured bucks. or, u.s. citizens are not born into this world to make sure that the faggots who feed RIAA makes money. Being born is not an indentured slavery contract to public or to individuals.
...
if you want to make money, go make it. if you dont like not knowing a CEO's health status, DONT FUCKING INVEST IN THAT CORPORATION.
and, IF YOU STILL DID, SHUT THE HELL UP. what goes on past steve's shirt, trousers, whatever he is wearing, IS HIS BUSINESS. sell your shitty stock if you are worried that your precious bucks gonna fly away.
and im no apple fan
Read radical news here
If it is, and that person is the CEO, then there are bigger problems for the investor. If the CEO does not delegate and the company does not have a succession plan, there are definitely bigger problems.
What if the CEO dies suddenly in an accident? Do you really want to invest in a company that is so reliant upon one person that an accident would adversely impact its value?
No, Steve Jobs should not have to reveal any medical information about himself. Yes, Steve Jobs should make sure a succession plan is in place and the investor should be able to make informed decisions based upon that.
This issue highlights one of the key differences between US style rules based corporate legislation and UK based principles based legislation. In the UK the test would be - is there material information affecting the comapany's prospects that a director or director(s) are aware of? - if so it must be disclosed.
whereas in the US, you don't have a specific regulation covering this situation, so Steve can get away without coming clean. So in the absence of a specific regulation, most of the chatter is trying to turn this into a moral issue - which it isn't. There's something that could materially affect the share price - and being so should be disclosed.
(of course my above two paragraphs assume the presence of Steve Jobs as being material to Apple. I begrudingly admit that may be so. He is a grade A asshole, but he has managed to produce outrageous margins from flogging shiny trinkets.)
I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
I wouldn't personally invest in a company that was that precariously positioned... I'm not entirely sure which it is, but surely a properly priced company isn't in such a precarious position where one individual getting hit by a bus would crush it the way that the NY Times is suggesting.
There are plenty of company's where the CEO's management warrants a premium P/E multiple. If Warren Buffet were to die tomorrow, Berkshire Hathaway's stock would suffer. If Bill Gates had died during the mid 90s, you can bet Microsoft's stock would have cratered. John Chambers (Cisco), Satoru Iwata (Nintendo), Laksmi Mittal (ArcelorMittal), Rupert Murdoch (News Corp.), these are just a few instances where the CEO is basically the franchise. If you want an example of what a bad CEO can do look at Carli Fiorina (HP), Angelo Mozilo (Countrywide), Jimmy Cayne (Bear Stearns), or Hector Ruiz (AMD).
A CEO (and management in general) is an asset to a company just like a manufacturing plant, cash, or inventory. However, unlike the aforementioned, the value of a company's management cannot be accurately reflected on a Balance Sheet. Instead a CEO's or management's (in)effectiveness if often reflected in the stock price, specifically the premium or discount to which the stock trades compared to its competitors.
For example, Apple's Forward P/E is currently 30 while Microsoft and Dell are trading at about 18 and 19 respectively. A good portion of that premium is due to the fact that Steve Balmer and Michael Dell are failing at leading their respective companies, while Steve Jobs has done a bang up job at spearheading Apple's product development.
Now, if you don't want to invest in companies that depend on a key man or group, that's you're prerogative. No risk, no reward. But there are people that do (and from the list above you can see it does pay off), and to them knowing Steve Job's health is an important concern.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
he's such a mental midget that he only managed to be elected to the office twice!
I think that says more about the voters than about him...
... succession plan.
Presidents have Vice Presidents for a reason. What Apple - indeed ANY company - should have is a succession plan in place to deal with the loss of the CEO (be it medical, accident, insanity, stock option back-dating conviction....)
Far more important to me as an investor than the CEO's medical records would be the corporate succession plan.
paintball
Serous health issues are always very personal. Even within ones family sometimes. It may be that he's most concerned about protecting his family from knowing that he's not all that well. Different circumstance dictate different degrees of disclosure but I bet this is what it is.
If Jobs really was suffering from a terminal illness, I would expect to see him grooming a successor. To the tune of, having someone else up on stage with him, so that if/when he decided to/needed to retire, the transition to the new figurehead would be smooth. I don't really pay any attention to the speculation about Jobs' health, because I am pretty sure that until we see him grooming a successor, he isn't planning on going anywhere.
Of course, I also pay no attention whatsoever to his presentations and press conferences, so I have no idea whether or not he actually *is* grooming a successor. But given that no one ever seems to talk about any personality at Apple besides Jobs, I feel pretty confident with the assumption that he is not.
Just because most people keep their medical records private doesn't mean it's right for every person to do so.
Oh no, what a terrible sacrifice for our pal Steve.
>It's already done. I know for a fact that cops, cab drivers, & aircraft pilots are required to pass
>a physical exam. This isn't a new thing.
Yes of course, but the results are not disclosed *to you*.
They probably are not even disclosed *to the organization*, except under very well-defined conditions, and even then, no doubt, with the patients authorization.
Without the patient's authorization, it is in all cases, grounds for revoking a medical license to improperly disclose medical information. Now if you spent four or five years getting a pre-med undergrad, six years getting a medical degree, and however long you've spent in practice (not long if you're still having to do physicals for cops), you don't want to lose it all, right?
The chief of police doesn't have the ability to look up which of the female officers have had abortions or STD's in the last 5 years.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Maybe, maybe not. Remember the old observation that it doesn't matter who casts the ballots; what matters is who counts the ballots. And some of the people paid to manage the counting did promise beforehand that they'd deliver the election to Bush and the Republicans.
Of course, this works best if the voters are divided roughly 50:50, which does seem to have been approximately the situation in both elections. It'd have been a lot more difficult if the voters had been divided 60:40.
There's also the wisecrack that Bush clearly won the 2000 election - by a 5:4 margin. It wasn't the first time that an American election was decided by a court.
(And I wonder why we talk of "casting" ballots. Anyone know? That's a rather bizarre metaphor. But a quick google didn't turn up any useful clues. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
> To refuse you would have to be asked. I don't think any one needs to ask Obama for his records but McCain (or even Paul who I would rather see as President), most certainly. But if Obama were to be asked and then refuse, well then that would smell to me.
I think they already were. Remember when there was that fuss over them? I don't remember about Obama (IIRC, he's quite healthy), but McCain refused to release his health records for quite a while.
Then finally he did: he got a bunch of friendly press and gave them an hour or two to review all 4,000 or so pages of medical records he has. After that, there were lots of articles about the time he had a bit of melanoma removed from his face, but the whole issue vanished.
And short on dollars, long on debt is the opposite. How about that? We all speculate on futures.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Your arguing against something no-one said.
What's all this fuss about? It's really, really, quite very simple.
Steve Jobs is dying.
Me too. So are you. And every CEO, CIO, CFO... every CxO.
To be fair, if we're going to insist that Mr Jobs reveal his personal health history and prognosis, then we should insist on such from all CxOs.
And we won't stop there, no sir. We won't be satisfied with that. We'll next go after school superintendants and plant managers, then principals, foremen, and team leaders... and follow from there to you and me.
Sad but true, we are all dying. Get used to it, and move on.
This 'controversy' is just market manipulation chatter.
I think people take this privacy over medical stuff too seriously. If there's something wrong with you people need to know.
It's not like being a minority where there's no legitimate reason why it should matter, medical issues mean there's something wrong with you & keeping it a secret from everyone could cause injury or death depending on the situation.
Ever since I can remember my mom gets really pissed off about it being nobodys business whenever she has to talk about her meds or when she hears about someone else talking about ther meds.
Now that I'm grown I have to reason with her when she gets like that, "Bitch you're crazy and you take medication to function, people need to know that shit".
She gets mad that I talk to her like that, butif I don't she thinks it's a joke & when I remind her about the time I had a police officer shake my foot and wake me up to let me know they're taking her to the hostpital because she's seeing shit and thinks someone is climbing up to her second story bedroom window to get her, she shuts up real quick.
People can get hurt if this stuff isn't disclosed. My dad kidnapped my little brother and I when we were kids because my mom had an episode & he didn't think it was good for us to be around her & he was probably right.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
*rimshot*
Ancient Greeks did their voting by marking shards of pottery or shells, or using colored marbles, and tossing them into a voting urn. Thus, "casting your vote".
I'm a cancer survivor, two different cancers and a relapse, and I've survived a hemorrhage in my brain *and* a non cancerous tumor in my neck. And I understand Steve Jobs desire to keep things quiet.
I don't think that illnesses in anyone, even public officials, should be public knowledge.
Okay ... how about Congress? How much power do you have to have before your health (or lack of it) makes you a threat to a whole lot of people? And I'm not just talking physical disabilities or issues ... there are psychological problems as well. Say, megalomania.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
IANAL, neither in the US or in the UK, but from purely a logical perspective, the statement "is there material information affecting the comapany's prospects that a director or director(s) are aware of?" is open to interpretation. If a CEO's medical records are a matter of public record, then why wouldn't the average peon's be? That's a huge deal in the US. Hey if 10% of the workforce has medical conditions that have a dramatic impact on the company's medical insurance premiums, isn't that material information that affects the company's prospects?
In the US, I've not heard of any CEO outting their personal health at any given time. In the UK do they have to have you heard of anyone doing that?
And Steve Jobs is one man of thousands. We place too much importance on CEOs as it is now, so now we must enhance that by outing the CEOs health information? Steve surrounds himself with good people. He's a smart man, but he does not do this all by himself. Just because the CEO is sick doesn't mean the entire company will tank tomorrow.
Someone in the NY times has a stake, or has links to someone who has a stake, in Apple. That's the only reason for wanting Steve's health info. On Wall Street, Steve is a cult of personality because most of the populace believes Steve is responsible for everything good at Apple. The stock market abhor uncertainty, and because of that uncertainty, they want the rumors quashed or verified. Until then, the stock will teeter a bit, and traders will worry endlessly if the rumors are true or not.
Well, because privacy should be an overriding concern in all societies, this is one line I'm not willing to cross. Wall Street and the NY times have every right to ask if Steve Jobs has a successor lined up if something happens to him. That's not personal info, that's business info. But they can't ask for his medical records and should not have a right to them. No way.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
People will vote for the image of Texan man with the freshly purchased "family ranch" that he can pretend he came from but not for some Ivy League educated son of a Yankee pencil pusher. It's a show just like the freshly painted fighter jet and the riduculous top gun costume (it was not just a uniform) for the mission accomplished stunt.
Plenty of people have said that Jobs should be compelled to give up certain information. There is no basis for this argument. It's that simple.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
A four-digit UID with bad karma is still a four-digit UID.
In my opinion, Jobs' value to the company is pretty damn hard to measure... But like most risks in corporations, it's up to the management of the company to manage such risks. If there is a risk of Jobs' health removing him from the role, they should have appropriate key man insurance, and a plan, to mitigate that risk as much as possible.
While the value of Apple's corporate executives is seen (rightly or wrongly) as highly centralized around Jobs, many other companies have policies to mitigate risk between their management. When I ran a major photo sharing in the .COM bubble days, two of the top two folks at Kodak came to court us (well, at least pump us for information, it turned out.) They had to take separate Lear Jets to our city; they weren't allowed to fly on the same plane, in case of an incident. Many companies have similar policies that so many board members or senior management can't fly on the same plane.
I can understand investors' concern about Jobs. However, he doesn't seem that bad to me, and I'm sure top dollars are being put into every health concern he may have. I do have mixed feelings about the disclosure issue. In the case of most companies, where the perceived management talent is spread among several folks, the illness or death of one has less of an impact as compared to Apple, where the perceived management direction comes from one man.
And given how the company floundered without him, and regained its direction with his return, there might just be something to that. Perhaps because of this, Apple does owe some more details of Jobs personal status to its investors. As an investor, I would personally have a lot less confidence in Apple without Steve's strong vision at the helm.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
The reporter who wrote that article is a tool. A persons health is not material to corporate governance and disclosure commitments unless it effects their capacity to make decisions. And this is not something that necessarily should be shared with stockholders. Corporate governance laws place obligations on the Directors of companies to act in the best interests of the company. If the capacity of a director is effected to the point that the company is at risk they are under an obligation to stand down themselves (if they are not capable) or remove the director who is not capable. Privacy laws prohibit this kind of nonsense. What if a CEO is having marital problems? an affair? trouble with their kid getting bullied at school? What if they decide to take a holiday for 2 weeks? do some further study at uni? What if their mother is sick? These are all things which either take up their time or mean that their mind is focussed elsewhere. Does that mean we should have the right, as shareholders to know about it? I understand Apple is Steve and Steve is Apple... The reporter is still a tool.
Steve Jobs is the brand. This is not without good reason. He is in a position to make style and strategy decisions that bean counters wouldn't otherwise let a company make. Not that he's always right, he's just right often enough that many of the resulting products are cool enough to be hits. Let's face it, someone else might be able to yell at and fire engineers, but most of those guys or gals would be doing it because the engineers developed a product that wouldn't sell to other bean counters. Steve Jobs does it because he believes that his style requirements haven't been met.
In this case, it's a bit like Frank Stephenson yelling at one of his engineers for coming to him with a design that's not Ferrari enough. Not having Steve Jobs calling the shots at Apple means another turn with someone like John Sculley. You get textbook MBA-school generic product management. Naturally, one of the first moves would be to sell to "business" and become more like Dell or IBM. This would (and nearly did) ruin Apple. Steve Jobs has helped Apple carve out its own distinctive niche in the market of consumer electronics. Jonathan Ive may have been hired toward the end of Sculley's watch, but Jobs put him where he is today.
As you say, this has been a double-edged sword for Apple. Jobs drives great products out on to the market. Yet, Apple can expect hardship when Jobs retires or is unable to helm the company for whatever reason. Investors are rightly worried, as, in this case, one individual does make a huge difference, marketing or no marketing.
Death is a private matter, so are they going to withhold that as well?
"We have heard reports that Steve Jobs is dead. Can you confirm or deny?"
"I'm sorry, Steve Job's body is his own business. It would violate his privacy to tell you."
or else!
"a simple CEO" - Well that about concludes him in a nutshell
One difference is that there's an established plan for recovering after the death of a U.S. President. Apple hasn't told investors what the hell they intend to do sans Jobs.
People, people! Remember, his job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it!
>You might want to know about your surgeon's Parkinsons.
You might, but it also might be completely irrelevant except to frighten and scare a patient with little knowledge of Parkinson's disease. There are many patients with Parkinson's that are close to 100% asymptomatic, whether it's due to the proper medication, deep-brain stimulation or another treatment. In short, making surgeons automatically disclose that they have or don't have Parkinson's is useless scaremongering that could simply drive patients away from an experienced surgeon with no loss in functionality to a less experienced, younger surgeon.
This kind of medical bogeyman argument led to all of the erroneous "well, what if my kid went to school with another kid with HIV??? DEAR GOD HE COULD GET CUT OR SOMETHING, make them disclose it" thinking in the 1980s.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I'd vote for Porky Pig before I voted for Bush.
If you listen to his speeches given while governor of texas, he sounds like a college educated guy from yale. If you listen to him now, either he had a stroke, or he's putting on a show.... like a politician that managed to get elected twice?
Say you're a long-time IT staffer that's been key to designing, building, and managing from the mission-critical IT infrastructure of a business. You like the job, because it has an above-average salary with top-notch benefits, good hours and great co-workers. It just has the drawback of an asshole manager above you. This asshole manager comes up to you today and demanded your medical records, because he heard a rumor that you were being treated for a life-threatening health condition that's getting worse. He wants to know if you will need to be replaced with someone that's less of a health risk, so you can start training your replacement now, or if he can just dismiss it as a wild rumor.
Do you (A) give in to his demand because it's relevant to the business or (B) tell him politely to bugger off as it's none of his business?
There seems to be a disturbingly large # of /.ers today that would choose (A), based on the comments I'm reading.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
He has the legal right to keep his medical information private.
However, as head of an organization that is built upon marketing and image, in particular his own image, it may still be prudent for him to disclose his medical conditions.
And it is certainly proper for people who give their money to this company to ask about it.
...but he's still a twat.
But in my opinion privacy is still a right that we have. So no i dont think he should have to tell what is going on. If investors are getting nervous it is for a good reason though, as mentioned before Jobs is Apple, with his 'field' he gets everyone hyped over already proven technology, through away products etc. The price IS very overrated of both the product and the stock. If he goes its bye bye Apple and it's shares or at least it will fall to a very minor company (or M$ cashes their stock as they alreay own a very big chuck of the shares, oh yes they do).
With all respect to ppl but once discussions start about apple products all logic is thrown overboard.
Still hope he is not sick i dont wish that to anyone...
Message from god, Please logoff, rebooting the Universe
Give a good example and publish all the health info of your managemenet and see what they think should happen. And also of their editors and journalists. The reason is that we then can decide if we think an article is objective or subjective.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Can't remember but it was part of the extended credits/coda at the end of GATTACA. As did Abe Lincoln.
I always thought that was the point of him winning, evidenced by the current situation.
Oh wait, did you mean "lead" as in direct, command, conduce, preceed, spearhead?
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
Here we go again. More 'human rights'.
You guys make this stuff up as you go along, right?
Max.
The more I have to say that presidents and CEO's should have to divulge their medical records.
In California it is a felony to knowingly have sex with a partner without disclosing that you are HIV positive (and with the intent to harm the partner). In other words you can be sued if your medical status puts another at risk and you don't inform them of the risk (and you want to hurt them).
One can draw a parallel that the welfare of citizens and shareholders is affected by the medical status of presidents and CEOs. Therefore it should either be the case that the pres/CEO be legally required to disclose their medical records, or be able to be held liable for damages caused as a result of their condition.
Of course in this Calfornia law parallel one could argue that they be liable only if they intended to inflict harm with their medical condition. But quite frankly I think the HIV law is too lenient. If you don't disclose your HIV then I think you are knowlingly putting somebody at risk for your own gain and I think that is just as deserving of liability as intent to harm. Same for the CEOs and presidents.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Fine. If the New York Times wants to give out that information, Steve Jobs can give it out...the same time the editor in chief of the Times gives out his own medical information. Stock holders want this accountability from their head? Why can't Jobs require them to give theirs? After all, they own the stock. They have some control of who owns the company. Don't Jobs and the board have the right to know the health of their investors?
Of course not. Eisenhower was out of action for months towards the end of his term due to illness. It was to the point that, for as long as a year, Nixon was unofficially running the country. Hell, there are times when we don't know if Cheney, the #2 in line for the presidency, is alive or dead! Knowing where he is is like playing "Where's Waldo?". Remember, as said many times, Jobs is a private citizen. You need to demonstrate without reasonable doubt, that his health is affecting his performance as CEO, before you can launch such an investigation. Considering the performance of Apple(highest % market share since the days of the Apple II, 3G iPhone, OSX, controlling interest in Disney), I think they should quit their bitching and think of what it was like WITHOUT Jobs at the helm.
I read the NY Times article and thought Steve Jobs calling Joe Nocera a "slime bucket" was not accurate. But then I realized that apparently someone doctored the recent NY Times photograph of Steve Jobs used in the story so that it would have less healthy-looking red color.
This is apparently a normal photograph: Steve Jobs, looking healthy. Here's another: Steve Jobs, plenty of purple in the background, but with red in his skin.
Orwell would have the power of government stop at the citizen's body. Let's limit industry to the same standard.
So the question is, what has been the standard at Apple? If any employees have been subjected to a, e.g., a drug test, as a condition of employment, then Jobs has established an environment in which he in turn has no expectation of privacy. If Apple has respected the body of the employee, then Jobs has rights within his own structure.
He's a smart man, but he does not do this all by himself.
Though he'd like you to believe he does.
The last few years of Apple products have been incremental, obvious (and often late-to-the-party) improvements to existing inventions.
Nah, I think Steve has peaked.
Blar.
I think that it is definitely Jobs' prerogative to keep his health information private. But it may be in Apple's best interest to disclose at least some more of this information. This is also an ideal juncture for Jobs to address the issue of succession (which will inevitably come up again at a later date, even if he were given a clean bill of health tomorrow). Dr. Tantillo ('the marketing doctor') did a recent post on his branding blog (blog.marketingdoctor.tv), asserting that Jobs and Apple are two separate brands--Jobs one that is irreplaceable but that can, at this juncture, help ensure Apple's longevity--and that, with the question of Jobs' health at least being raised, this is definitely the time to do so. Here's a link to the full post: http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/07/24/brand-advisory.aspx
It also says something about the fools that were running against him.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Isn't this why we have the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)? Granted, said act is with regards to privacy primarily primarily health insurance portability in mind ... but how can such privacy be afforded Mr.Jobs if/when disclosed to investors?
It also makes me wonder to some degree about said investors, as it sounds like they're putting all their Apple eggs into a person rather than a company? Shouldn't said investors then also ask "what guarantees can Mr.Jobs give us that he won't get hit by a bus?"
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
The difference could partly be attributed to age.
My father has certainly not had a stroke, however he speaks with a thicker southern brogue than he did 5 or 10 years ago (in his mid 50s now)
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
sj=Steve Jobs
sb:Steve Ballmer
md:Mac Dude
[Ballmer running around in the background screaming about "developers" and throwing chairs ...]
sj: Hello, I'm Steve Jobs
md: And I'm a Mac
sj: *cough* *cough* *gassspp* **thud**
md: As you can see, unlike Microsoft, Apple always has a trendy, hip replacement available, as well as advanced contingency plans.
sj: *cough* I'm not dead yet!
sb: [hits Jobs with a chair] **thud**
md: Hello, I'm a Mac
??: And I'm the new Apple iDroid, wired with Steve Jobs' brain.
md: As you can see, Apple's new innovations protect not only your data, but your whole life.
[a large baboon with lobotomy stitches runs by screaming about "developers", then trips over a chair]
md: Looks like the PC crowd hasn't quite worked the bugs out of that one...
Slow down there, fella. Being an idiot and saying stupid things doesn't count as a speech impediment. The only thing wrong with our President's diction is that he's a rich Connecticut heir, who pretends to have a Texas twang.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
I think OP was referencing his genetic and terminal condition of being an idiot.
It's a gamble.. there are laws in place to ensure that it is a gamble.. either roll the dice, or stfu.
SJ: The good news, I'm a positive kind of guy.
Doctor: OK, well you're not going to die of cancer.
SJ: Thank God! And the bad news?
Doctor: You look fucking ridiculous in those black turtlenecks. Oh, and you've got a brain tumour which will kill you long before the cancer takes hold.
SJ: You sure about the turtlenecks?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
And what, in your opinion, should society not sacrifice in pursuit of profit? We designed the corporate system to behave as an amoral shark, but that doesn't mean that design is appropriate and that the costs can be pushed aside.
Digital Citizen
I dunno. To me it looks a whole lot like harassing Jobs just for the sake of harassing him, especially in light of other similarly timed items in Mad Magazine and in MS' Slate. Smear campaigns have been common in politics when the opponents can't compete on the issues, someone is bothered by Apple making a good product and/or a good profit. Let's see who's doing poorly these days and objects to Jobs (pun intended) ...
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Any corporation whose success is dependent on just one person is not a good corporation and not worth investing in.
Sure the CEO is important, but they are just one person among thousands. Business continuity plans *should* have a plan in case the CEO dies or is abducted or killed. Someone else who is just as smart and able to run the business should take the CEO's role in no time in case the CEO can't work.
Corporations that don't have that kind of business continuity planning should plan for such a possibility as soon as possible. It makes no sense to do business as a corporation if your whole success depends on just one person.
If such business continuity plan is in place, it does not matter how healthy the CEO or anyone else is, as someone equally capable will take their place immediatelly.
For the first time ever I agree with a Jobs comment.
Allergy to high-velocity injections of lead is actually quite common, but the condition is often diagnosed when it's already too late.
Also, try moving forward and to the right. Might work better.
I'd recommend moving forward and to the right. Let us know how it works out.
Comments weren't showing up, thought there was a problem. Sorry for double post.
You know, in an ideal world I don't think that Jobs should have to reveal his medical information to anyone he doesn't want to.
But this isn't an ideal world. We live in a world where tons of people are forced to give medical information to their employers as a precondition of employment. It's called "drug testing."
They scan for narcotics, some of which are legal by prescription. They test for stimulants and hallucinogens and so on. Again, some of which fall under prescriptions.
Does that mean that you're not being tested to see if you're on antidepressants or antipsychotics? I'm sure they'd be sued into oblivion if it were found out they're screening out the bipolar and schizophrenic applicants.
Point is, if the man on the street has to pee for the man on the top floor, the man on the top floor has to pee for the man on the street.
And, yes, Apple employees are drug tested. Mr. Jobs doesn't have a leg to stand on. But again, I don't think he should have to reveal his information. I don't think his employees should have to reveal theirs to him, either.
We could all be hit by a giant beer ship delivering hyperale to some far off star tomorrow. What would that do to AAPL's stock price?
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
Also known as acute lead poisoning.
Except of course that he makes a point of giving employees credit during his keynotes, but don't let anything as annoying as facts interfere with your opinion.
I dunno. I do think you have a point since W did live in Texas a while. However, the flubs in his English are too bad to not be intentional given what I heard on the recordings.
Paraphrasing from the NY Post, politicians like to hold mirrors up to their audience so that they feel like they are voting for themselves.
I always thought an apple a day kept the Doctor away. Perhaps that's not one of his god's condiments. Titty-boom!