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.'"
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
I think maybe he would suggest that people are free to not vote for a candidate based on their refusal to share their medical records.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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!
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.
His Addison's disease diagnosis was nationally televised? Live?