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.'"
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.
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.
Interesting. So do you suggest that everyone who runs for office really ought to be offering up their medical records for examination by voters?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
As an investor there are so many other things I'd want disclosed more than health records. I wouldn't personally invest in a company that was that precariously positioned.
It's either a completely inaccurate argument about Apple or evidence that Apple is absurdly overpriced as a company. 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.
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.
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
From TFA:
This particular slime-ball obviously uses some definition of "off the record" that I am unaware of.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Interesting situation. On the one hand, if a company relies on one person, the health, including mental health, of that one person is of GREAT interest to the investors. On the other hand, the HIPPA privacy laws were passed to protect the privacy of patients.
Do we say that people have the right to privacy about their medical lives except if they run a company? Or do they have a right to privacy about their medical lives except if they work for someone?
Of course, as someone else pointed out, we don't have the right to privacy about our medical lives from insurance companies, or the government.
Would we be all better off if our medical conditions were public, but it was illegal to deny a job or housing, etc., based on that information?
As we get even more Information centric, will we be able to google the health records of one's ancestors? It seems it's only a matter of time before lost or leaked information about family health will be available on the web. Just take one large insurance company getting hacked, and you'll have not only health records, but family history. And probably DNA in the not too distant future.
Logically you phrased it as: So do you suggest that everyone who runs for office really ought to be offering up their medical records for examination by voters?
The reply (not by GP..) was: 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.
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.
But, to be sure, I'd vote on ideals first, health second. I don't see the benefit in putting them the other way around in any circumstance.
Money is the root of all evil?
Actually, these days you almost can...
Rights are not just legal rights. Rights include Human rights. One of those Human Rights (tm) is some decent level of privacy (of which the governments of the world keep encroaching on and setting those who care into tremors of rage).
It's plainly arguable that privacy should include medical records for obvious reasons (loss of job, blackmail, etc.etc.). Stepping across that boundary for stock advice is no worse than stepping across it to take money from you.
So sure, it's not "illegal", but damned if it's not amoral, and the Times should be ashamed of themselves for being that amoral. But of course, the diminishing capacity of understanding of even these basic concepts is being lost on the American Public by corrupt politicians and even more corrupt businesses encroaching further into the privacy domain every time someone new steps into office.
I'm glad to see that at least someone still exists to call people out on this. Today it's privacy.
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
... 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
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.
Hear hear about the truck.
The individual investor's nervousness(that something might happen to SJ) is caused by their speculation, and not knowing what plans there might be at Apple if something happens to him. I'd say due diligence would be contacting the board about what contingency plans they have in place, not messing with SJ. Worrying about his health is one thing, but they can't do much about it anyways, they just want to know, because, as long as he doesn't tell, they aren't sure they HAVE to think about the contingencies. Whereas the reality is they have to think and plan, for those contingencies nonetheless. Even if he is sick, that doesn't give them any advantage, unless he keels over tomorrow(if the disease has a really fixed timeframe). That this affects the stock is a consequence not of the perceived value of the stock, but the perceived lack of leadership at Apple, outside of SJ. Publishing the contingency plans(which are company documents and should be available to shareholders) is the only thing that makes sense.
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.
Jobs is a private individual. As far as I'm concerned, Jobs can keep all his medical records secret...I'm not a shareholder. If I was, and it made a big enough difference to me to know if he was going to be around to run the company, I'd demand that he disclose information to that effect. Not a bit of difference between that and if he was healthy and had been investing heavily in an intense business rival. That's like a baseball player betting against his own team.
On the other hand, the President is *MY PROPERTY* (and yours, too). My state representatives and my state governmental officials and my local sheriff are as well. Since there is supposed to be transparency in government, it is my right to know if a politician or member of government has a conflict of interest that may compromise the integrity of their decisions; and, like it or not, health concerns can affect the decision-making of an official at any level. They lose all rights to privacy when they run for public office or take a government job. I'm not saying that they cease to be human, but if it's important enough to keep hidden from me, then it's important enough to know.
I can be moderated as Inciteful...
Well the problem in this case,and I'm not trying to flame here, is that way too many folks in the media and Mac fans have built up this whole "Temple of Steve" thing to the point that i have no doubt that if Steve Jobs was to get killed in a car crash tomorrow that their stocks would take a significant hit. Would it be the end of Apple, Would iLife without the Steve force all the Mac Fans to go running to the Ballmer monkey? Of course not.
The only way that losing Steve Jobs would kill Apple is if they brought in another clueless suit like Gil to replace him. But of course the stock market is full of those who only think short term so the stock would plummet for awhile. The only way I don't see that happening is if they managed to bring back the Woz to replace him. So while I respect the man's right to privacy,considering the almost mythic status placed upon him by the fans and press I can understand why they would want to know. Of course he is free to tell them to go f*ck themselves,as they wouldn't be stupid enough to try to get rid of Steve. And as always this is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Jobs is clearly saying "I'm sick still, but I don't want to talk about it because it's personal." And it's a free country. This being slashdot, I'm free to speculate all I'd like. Former chemo patient, possibly *many* blood transfusions, potential for high embarrassment...by Friday this will be announced as: hepatitis.
Y'know, that might not be such a bad idea. Already, there are ways for candidates to get money and the one who gets the most money (almost) invariably wins the elections. It already looks like an IPO... Perhaps those who own stock in the winning candidate should get a say in how the country is run? It would look something like a cleptocracy, only it'd be above-board and you'd have the SEC as guardians of the political system. Want a war in Afghanistan? Issue common stock to pay for more tanks. Of course, it may be that your stock trades so low already that you simply can't afford it.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Well, in the US it will take between 0 and 4 years to perform that operation.
Another solution is to move to another country.
Easier. Fixes the problem immediately. =)
Or, you can demand that all candidates for any government position are required to make a medical exam with full public disclosure.
That way, you know beforehand if they're physically fit to hold such a position.
Also, make them do a public mental health and IQ test, so that you don't fall for someone like Bush again, who might be physically fit to run a country, but not mentally.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)