Slashdot Mirror
Hospital Confirms Steve Jobs's Liver Transplant
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."
third party upgrades were approved
Nullius in verba
This is the second story in a few hours we've had talking about some guy's liver transplant. It makes me feel like a voyeur. Can we get back to something wholesome and uplifting, like bashing the RIAA?
Qxe4
I wonder how much trouble Apple may get into for calling Jobs' problem a "hormone imbalance" to their investors.
A hormonal imbalance is one thing, and a liver transplant is a completely different animal.
About the same time this buddy of mine, Eugene Victor Tooms went missing.
I record my sleeptalking
Yes, but the Steve Jobs update adds new features such as cut and paste, MMS, Spotlight search and an improved calendar!
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Are you dense?
From your own quote:
While Eason said the confirmation was being provided with Jobs' approval ...
was that Jobs underwent a brain enhancement procedure which enables him to sufficiently focus his mental RDF energy for use as a telepathic weapon.
Apple will house the new weapon, tentatively codenamed iDontThinkSo in an underground bunker beneath their Cupertino campus.
Because of Mr Jobs' prolific temper, executives were initially concerned about the potential for misuse the weapon presented and the possibility of its use against enemies who were not truly dire. For this reason, a killswitch was installed to be controlled remotely via Phil Schiller's iPhone.
Analysts predict the new weapon will bolster the company's share price by at least 20% and should by them enough time to complete the fully cybernetic Jobs 2.0.
That would be 'dumbass, Sir!' to you... And thank Bhudda for /., where people can have a good old fashioned virtual pissing contest without mods getting in the way :)
Maybe now he'll understand why it's so important to be able to install third-party parts and he'll decide to loosen-up the licensing a little bit.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
$10 says his old liver ends up on ebay.
I'd tend to agree that this is useless voyeurism, except that there are some ethical issues that come up in transplants when the patient is very rich. The NY Times had an article about this today, and they specifically mentioned this hospital as one that had a very short average wait time of 3.8 months, compared to the national average of 12.3 months. "If you had access to a jet and had six hours to get anywhere in the country, you'd have a wide choice of programs," they quote one doctor as saying.
Find free books.
He didn't need to go on the organ transplant waiting list. There are thousands of apple fanboys who'd gladly give their livers to the almighty jobs in a heartbeat.
If I view the story here it's fine, but when viewing it at the 'friendly' url it spews crap all over the place. Namely those last three bars and that row of bubbles.
Come on Slashdot, if you at least fix this, I'll stop complaining about idle.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
And when he takes his shirt off you can see the backlit apple logo they installed, which also mysteriously doubled the cost of the operation.
- There is no point, it's like a sphere -
Livers are like starfish. You can hack them apart and they regrow. Heck, here is a story about a split liver helping 2 people.
You can also partially remove some from a living person (Lisa?) and give it to someone.
Unlike... kidneys, lungs, hearts, etc.
without mods? This is article about the messiah of the Apple cult. Wait till they release their mod army.
3...2...1...
Still absolutely amazed at this. Given Apple said it was a hormone imbalance... Isn't deliberately misleading investors the sort of thing the SEC takes a dim view of? Don't know my US stock market laws and all that but I can't imagine the guy who IS, to many people, Apple, being in a life threatening condition and the shareholders not being told being seen as a good thing. Yes it protected the share price, but didn't they lie?
Whatever, glad Jobs is okay. One of the few people in the tech industry I admire.
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The USA has several organ-transplant centers. In theory, patients can enter their name into the waiting list of any or all centers.
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. Physicians cannot just freeze a liver for a week until you can arrange a plane ticket to reach the center. Livers are perishable items.
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.
but they couldn't find his old one.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Well a double-dumbass on you, sir!
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
Which is worse:
* The First Poster who blows his own post away by failing to quote out of context to confuse readers into thinking he had a point
or
* The guy with mod points that mods said poster up and then posts as AC to clear said mod?
Signed,
The Second Dumbass
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
Your brain is not a computer.
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.
Pretty sure liver problems make hormone imbalances
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!
Futurist Traditionalism
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".
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."
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
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.
They need to do way instain doner> who spilt thar libres. becaise these bibers cabt fight back it was on the news this mronign a boss in memps who had bight on his liber. They ar had him company for two month and back for new liber. Only just now the talm abiyt it! Probly even deed alraidy!
Ask me about repetitive DNA
This is going to go well with Fava beans and a nice Chianti
Task Mangler
Luckily, a normal person has 2 kidneys, 2 lungs and 2 hearts they can donate, so it's not really a problem.
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
"Plus really, considering that Apple has plans to appoint a new CEO if Jobs dies, they have done all they need to for their shareholders."
Today's Wall Street Journal made the argument that it is in fact more important to hang onto the guy that's been running the shop in Jobs' absence. Tim Cook has now run Apple twice in Jobs' stead, and has impressed both times. Jobs will inevitably retire (or die) sooner rather than later, and there seems to be no doubt that they want to keep the captain's chair for Cook. While he was never given the "interim CEO" title, the Journal notes that he's pretty much done the CEO job this past year, including negotiations with AT&T on iPhone issues. He's already on Nike's board, and again, according to the same story, Motorola and Dell both tried to snatch him a year ago. Right now, he's making a pittance compared to Jobs, and under his watch, Apple's stock has gone up 60% since January. I agree with the Journal here, and I think Apple would be wise to cough up a lot of cash to keep this guy. Pretty much everyone agrees the guy is indispensable.
WSJ: Stand-In shines at Apple
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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.
A apple a day, doesn't keep the doctor away.
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.
Steve Jobs is another example of how wealth buys health and an easy life.
Yeah, cause being rich kept him from getting pancreatic cancer in the first place, right?
Oh, wait.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I dunno about everyone else but when I heard "hormonal imbalance", and Steve Jobs had dropped out of sight, I figured he was in big trouble.
;) ).
e.g. cancer or AIDS or something else as serious as that.
You don't announce a hormonal imbalance that's not serious that way (he couldn't even appear in public!). Well unless he was changing gender (either voluntarily or involuntarily
So if you would sell/buy Apple stock just because Jobs is very sick, you should have done it the day they said "hormonal imbalance". But most "investors" won't do that - they'll just wait for someone to start first.
It's just like when Alan Greenspan says "irrational exuberance". He's not going to come out and say "Uh everyone, sell! Sell! Sell!". That would be irresponsible and stupid of him.
You want the sheep to move in a particular direction, but not rush off the cliff together.
Apple recently introduced a new exclusive product, the iDonor card. While more expensive than existing cards, its stylish design and unique branding ensured there was a queue of fanbois stretching round the block at every Apple store on the planet.
Home fucking is killing prostitution.
confidentially? Doesn't anybody proofread this stuff or do we just accept the INS (Idiocracy News Service)?
As someone who has worked with a hospital transplant team, Steve Jobs did absolutely nothing wrong. There is nothing that stops people from doing something similar to what Jobs did - finding the best center with the shortest waiting line; in fact, people do it all the time. Sure, there are plenty of people who cannot afford to do what he did but there are many who can - I saw (and still see it) all the time.
He could pay for the procedure with cash but people who use insurance get transplants all the time. Further, because of Jobs' socioeconomic status - as a transplant team you'd want to give him an organ because he would be able to maintain it. That can be a huge factor in who gets organs and who doesn't. If someone does not have any family to help take care of them or money to hire nursing help and if that person has questionable self-health care and practices (like they are still drinking alcohol and need a liver transplant), then they probably will not get an organ. Jobs will most likely really take care of his transplant, especially because he can pay for additional help.
In no way did he con the transplant system.
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.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
In my experience (I'm a doctor), almost all cancer patients go into denial and will downplay the severity of their symptoms. Steve Jobs is a billionaire, a tech guru, and all that, but he's also a human being. Based on what's publicly known, I'd say that his pancreatic islet cell cancer spread to his liver and that his liver tumour was non-resectable, and now he's ended up with a new liver by way of getting rid of the metastases. He describes his situation as a 'hormone imbalance' because that's one of the consequences of his condition, but the underlying diagnosis is far worse than that. Bottom line is that he's a very sick man... a cancer patient with a liver transplant has a limited life expectancy, and his role is now going to be figurehead/part time inputter of ideas more than being the day-to-day boss. Richard
He's a time lord.
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.
Disclaimer: I am a conservative. So I recognize the above as a variation on "the free market cures all ills" and the conservative notion that more wealth will make all of society better.
It won't.
The reason is basic economics. If everyone were rich and powerful; if everyone could create cool things like Steve Jobs does, then being a CEO would pay minimum wage. Compared to the rest of the world, America is rich on a GDP basis. However, compared to the rest of the world on a quality of life basis, America does little better than some third world countries. Consider:
I went to college. I made the grade. But so did millions of others. Every three years, the US University system grants college degrees to the equivalent of the population of Chicago. These are the people with whom I compete for jobs. Even though my father was an unskilled laborer, he had far less competition and enjoyed a far greater standard of living than I do. Yes, we're all educated now. Did our education solve the problem of limited resources? No, it just allows us a greater understanding of economics, of why, after decade of career preparation, we are now worse off than our parents' generation.
Does the rising tide lift all boats? Sure, to some degree. I can afford gadgets that would have amazed my parents' generation. But yet, for all my education - for changing careers from programming to engineering to get a better salary; in spite of doubling my net worth in the last decade - I am still struggling to afford the basic necessities of life. It means little to be able to buy that killer laptop when I can't afford to put a roof over my head. This isn't an education problem; it isn't a problem of productivity. It is a problem of economics and of corporate greed.
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.
I find myself in the oddest of paradoxes: I can afford whatever electronic toys I wish, yet cannot afford the basic necessities of family life.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.