Slashdot Mirror


Transplant Surgeon Called Dibs On Steve Jobs' Home

theodp writes "The Commercial Appeal reports that Dr. James Eason, the surgeon who performed Steve Jobs' liver transplant, found himself grilled at length Monday by Shelby County Commission members. The Univ. of Tennessee-Methodist Transplant Institute, which Eason heads, is in a bitter dispute over the distribution of human organs. Pressed for details by Commissioners West Bunker and Terry Roland about the 2009 liver transplant that Eason performed on the late Steve Jobs, Eason acknowledged that he's now living in the Memphis home that Jobs used during his convalescence. Bunker asked, "Was that a deal cut to get him a transplant here locally?" Eason: "I understand. It's a fair question. Absolutely not." Eason said a company lined up the housing for Jobs. "I took care of him and visited him in that home. And when I learned that it was going to be going on the market, I asked him, I asked the administrator of the LLC, if I could purchase it." So, is it time for Apple to shed some light on The Mystery of Steve Jobs' Memphis Mansion? It was reported that Apple lawyer George Riley, reportedly a friend of Eason's, helped Jobs with the arrangements for the Memphis mansion, which was acquired at a bargain price of $850,000 from the State of Tennessee by the mysterious LCHG, LLC on 3/26/2009. LCHG was formed on 3/17/2009, apparently just days before Jobs received his liver (on 3/21/2010, Jobs noted he was coming up on the 1-year anniversary of his transplant). Records show that title to the mansion was transferred to Eason in May, 2011, about three months after the National Enquirer painted a grim picture of Jobs' health. LCHG, LLC was dissolved in February 2012."

291 comments

  1. No idea by mynamestolen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Badly written article. I have no idea what it means.

    --
    work in progress
    1. Re:No idea by bannable · · Score: 0

      I guess the submitter is upset that this surgeon heard this nice house was on the market and decided to buy it?
      Is he trying to insinuate that the surgeon was blackmailing jobs...? IDGI

      --
      "If you see a man on a horse, he is likely an enemy. Kill the man and eat the horse."
    2. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. The issues is whether Steve arranged a kickback to the surgeon and his hospital in exchange for some preferential treatment. Did Jobs get a local (more convenient for him?) procedure, or did it go as far as being bumped up on the transplant list. If the latter, then it implies that Jobs used his money and position to get ahead of others who were also dying.

    3. Re:No idea by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Informative

      The guy who did Jobs' liver transplant got Jobs' house at a great price just before the transplant went through, via a shell company.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:No idea by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Imagine that happening in the good ol' USA!

      Shocking!

    5. Re:No idea by __aaqxjh2299 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It means not only did Jobs buy his way to the head of the transplant line in a state he had never lived in, but his trust sold the house to the doctor who performed the transplant. Legal, perhaps, but morally bankrupt. Jobs was a bad man.

    6. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you not been part of the work world before and been told, "avoid even the appearance of impropriety"? Well this certainly has the appearance of impropriety, does it not?

      That's why people are saying there are questions that need to be answered.

    7. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Isn't that exactly how the American health care system works? I'm pretty goddamn sure that's what the republicans have been saying for years now. Those who can pay the most get the best treatment and fuck everyone else. That's it isn't it?

    8. Re:No idea by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Come on... are you paying attention to the world at all.

      The ideas of avoiding the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest have gone right out the window. Just look at the Supreme Court and Congress. None of them obviously heard about it either.

      Going through the motions of questioning a real estate deal like this seems rather quaint and rather cute, and it's sure to amount to nothing at all. When you are in the elite you can buy your way out.

    9. Re:No idea by johnlcallaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yawn ... no story here. Nothing other than vague insinuations without any substantiations. I suppose people like to get worked up over stuff like this to bring other people down a notch or two. At least in their simple minds.

      When there is some real proof, let us know. 'Cuz I can see a different viewpoint...

      Doctor: Nice place you have here Steve
      Steve:Thanks
      Doctor: If you ever decide to get rid of it, let me know. I might be interested in it.
      Steve: You know doc, you've been real good to me. Tell you what, I'll sell it to you for a song to show my appreciation. It's a tough market out there now, and it would be nice to get rid of it.
      Doctor: Wow .. what a great guy you are. Thanks

      I find it interesting that people who always look for the bad in people always seem to find it. Must be a tough life, going around seeing the evil in every little thing while the beauty around you goes unnoticed.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    10. Re:No idea by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only that, he wasted a liver that could have been used for a lifetime by a person who should have gotten it

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    11. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is parent modded down? Slashdot is becoming such a lame place...

    12. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I read an article some time ago about this...don't recall where. Steve Jobs' health status was used as a springboard to discuss the issue.

      From what I remember from the article, a person seeking a transplant can be on multiple transplant waiting lists across the US (it's broken up into regions). However, that person would have to be able to travel to any region where an organ became available very quickly once informed. Steve happened to have the means to do so. Not everyone does. If you're wealthy and healthy enough for such travel, you can apply to multiple waiting lists. The list in the Memphis/TN region tended to be shorter than others, thus he got an organ faster than in CA.

      Travel after transplant surgery would likely be a big fat NO. He'd need time to recover and likely want to be near the surgeon and hospital where he got the surgery.

      That doesn't speak to whether he got preferential treatment within the region, though. Hmmm...

    13. Re:No idea by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Not surprising. Happened with Mickey Mantle too and he didn't have anywhere near the money Jobs had. Celebrities get preferential treatment and that's a fact.

    14. Re:No idea by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's pretty much how the world works. You can bet rich people in the UK don't stand in line at the local clinic. Germany either. If you're a billionaire and you have a deadly disease what do you think you're going to do? I don't know about you but I'm going to come off the wallet and try to save my ass. It's reality.

    15. Re:No idea by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think maybe you're a little naive.

    16. Re:No idea by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Because we all know that Jobs would not have done a solid for a friend and sold it for a bargain price.

      No, Jobs ate babies, he would have never done that.

      BTW: when I bought my friends jeep for under Bluebook I guess it was a "kickback" as well.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    17. Re:No idea by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Informative

      depends on whether or not he sold the home at market rates or reasonably close thereto.

      Just because it's a mansion doesn't mean it's actually worth a lot. We just had a friend of the family die who owned a property with 3 buildings on it, where similar properties down the street were going in the 2-2.5 million range, the one in question got just under 500k. Because as it turns out, no one had updated the electrical system since the switchover from 25 to 60 Hz power, and 75 years of bats living in ceilings doesn't do buildings any favours. Who knew?

      If you read the TFA's (and god are there a lot of them) the house was, pre 2008, appraised at between 1.3 and 1.4 million. And was the mansion for the university chancellor. Jobs bought it for 850k. Which, considering memphis has seen year over year price drops of easily double digits wouldn't be a huge shock. (http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Tennessee/Memphis-heat_map/). Also keep in mind that the Steve jobs LLC probably paid cash.

      From TFA, Eason paid 850K, which is the same as the LLC paid, I think.

      So what I would read into this is that housing prices for Million plus dollar homes in memphis crashed by 40% from 2008 to 2009, or at least expensive house prices crashed, and then there was the specific house in question, which, having been a chancellors mansion for the university might have only a limited clientèle of people who would actually want it. (Location maybe? I've never been to TN let alone memphis so the address means nothing to me).

      So sure, Steve probably got himself a deal from the government who were and are desperate for money on a house that wasn't going up in value any time soon. Whether or not it was actually an unfair deal is much harder to say. When housing prices are falling expect to get less than you were asking, and less than you appraised for.

    18. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Steve: You know doc, you've been real good to me. Tell you what, I'll sell it to you for a song to show my appreciation. It's a tough market out there now, and it would be nice to get rid of it.
      Doctor: Wow .. what a great guy you are. Thanks

      Yeah... that doesn't really sound like something Steve Jobs would do though, Jobs was a smart guy, but he wasn't necessarily the nicest guy, he had an ego the size of everest and a sense of entitlement to match.

    19. Re:No idea by SethJohnson · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not only that, he wasted a liver that could have been used for a lifetime by a person who should have gotten it

      Most assuredly, this liver was used for a lifetime by Steve Jobs.

      Seth

    20. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think maybe you're a little naive.

      And maybe you are pessimistic.

    21. Re:No idea by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If Obama can buy a house for 50 cents on the dollar from someone seeking influence and go on to be elected president then clearly the rules have changed.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    22. Re:No idea by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I agree it wasn't right. That said, I hope you're never in such a desperate situation where you're dying and grabbing at anything to live. I wonder if you'd live up to your own high standards? I like to think I'd refuse to take advantage but having never been there I can't say. It's easy to Judge when you haven't been there.

    23. Re:No idea by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Seriously? That's what you get from that summary?

      Not that there's suspicion that it was a pay off for getting him a transplant he wouldn't have otherwise got.

      Of course it doesn't mean that was actually the case but apparently someone other than the submitter is investigating the matter implying there's some suspicion.

    24. Re:No idea by vlm · · Score: 1

      Legal, perhaps, but morally bankrupt. Jobs was a bad man.

      It boils down to a question of is medicine a for profit industry or not. A major political question only in the USA. Regardless of what it "should" be, for profit or socialized, medicine clearly currently is a for-profit industry, here, at this time, so what he did obviously perfectly fits our moral code and obviously did not make him a bad man. He may have been immoral or bad in general or for other reasons, but merely participating in our healthcare system is not going to have an effect on his moral standing.

      I can see how someone from a different, perhaps more advanced culture, with a fully socialized medical system might think our system is wrong. Personally I'd agree. But its pointless to single out one famous guy from that inferior culture and demonize him as "the" problem.

      Its very much like "George Washington owned slaves therefore he was evil" type of meaningless drivel.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    25. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there lies the problem. The 1%ers can buy influence, buy their way to the head of organ transplant queues, buy laws...

      The rest of us? Just gotta suck it up and heed the ruling class.

    26. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs basically robbed one of his first colleagues of hundreds of dollars for work he didn't do. I'm willing to bet he'd do a lot more. Jobs was a good business leader, but he was still an asshole.

    27. Re:No idea by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because we all know that Jobs would not have done a solid for a friend and sold it for a bargain price

      Think about how many times just that sort of explanation has been used in court by people charged with racketeering, ponzi schemses, and similar. "Just a litte favor for a friend" is what people who are paying illegal kickbacks bribery, or extortion always say. A guy gets a contract for a new highway overpass, and it just haapens he recently built an outdoor hot tubbing area behind state representitive X's house at a bargain rate - just a favor for a long standing friend.

      Here, a corporation was apparently formed and dissolved soon after just to handle this one transaction. Doesn't that sound like just maybe somebody knew they were guilty of something and was trying to cover it up? Oh no, people don't do that to hide from the law, they form new corporations just to do "a solid for a friend!".

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    28. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wealth makes right. Steve paid for his bump on the list. If he had been bumped without paying for it, THAT would have been immoral (and tantamount to theft).

      It doesn't matter if some poor person died who could otherwise have been saved. That poor person couldn't afford to pay for a bump on the list, and didn't last long enough to get his turn behind the people who could (and did) afford to pay.

      What, you think poor people get some special rights and should get preferential treatment just because they are poor? That is ludicrous. Wealth is direct proof of one's contributions and value to society. Poor people are poor because they can't do squat for their fellow man (that is worth paying for). Why in God's name would we want to treat them as if they are more valuable than they are?

    29. Re:No idea by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jobs was a known bad transplant risk (for cancer that had already spread to multiple organs, a common reason to take a person off the lists entirely), and that liver only bought him a couple of years, if that. There are plenty of people who gain 20 or 30 healthy productive years from a liver transplant - in fact the best estimate currently for how long a transplant patient will live if they make it through the first few months when organ rejection is likely is now averaging 30 years. So yes, Jobs got a lifetime like anyone else, but not all lifetimes are (re)created equal.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    30. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I read an article some time ago about this...don't recall where. Steve Jobs' health status was used as a springboard to discuss the issue.

      The Economist. I read that too.

      However, that person would have to be able to travel to any region where an organ became available very quickly once informed.

      You mean a A Billionaire with a private jet.

      Here's what I'm thinking: he bypassed a bunch of children who were dealt a bad deal just because he was a billionaire who sold fancy gadgets of no real value. I mean please, I'm doing just fine without any of his products or clones.

      I think His appeal is that He was kinda weird and an outcast and made good - very good.

      So He was The Outlier of the century and folks worship Him - The Almighty Steve Jobs. The almighty who never even made an attempt at redemption - like this Bill guy from Redmond. I think Steve would have said "Fuck you World!" even if he lived until 100 making fancy little electronic gadgets with no real value..

    31. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The contrast between the feigned moral sophistication of your comment and the snide reductionism of your signature is pretty jarring.

    32. Re:No idea by CubicleZombie · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't Steve Jobs get better treatment?

      Lets say he and I needed liver transplants at the same time. I'm a nobody. I add very little to the world compared to Jobs. Why shouldn't he get bumped up in the priority list? Even better, why couldn't Steve and I bid for the liver with the proceeds going to the family of the donor? Losing a loved one must be difficult and expensive. Why not let the family profit.

      Is there a better metric than money? Should it be good looks? Charitable donations? Number of Facebook friends? Slashdot Karma?

      --
      :wq
    33. Re:No idea by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 1

      http://www.emedicinehealth.com/liver_transplant/article_em.htm ;

      "Determining whose need is most critical: The United Network for Organ Sharing uses measurements of clinical and laboratory problems to divide patients into groups that determine who is in most critical need of a liver transplant. In early 2002, UNOS enacted a major modification to the way in which people were assigned the need for a liver transplant. Previously, patients awaiting livers were ranked as status 1, 2A, 2B, and 3, according to the severity of their current disease. Although the status 1 listing has remained, all other patients are now classified using the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scoring system if they are aged 18 years or older, or the Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) scoring system if they are younger than 18 years. These scoring methods were set up so that donor livers could be distributed to those who need them most urgently [...blah blah blah...]"

      No single doctor can determine who gets a transplant and who does not. There's a rigorous process to determine need, there's a council or committee overseeing decisions, the whole process is documented, insurance companies are scrutinizing the whole thing very closely. Just because some elected officials chose to question a specific decision, that does not and shouldn't imply that the system is broken or corrupt. Imagine the lawsuits that would ensue if people had plausible reasons to believe the system was tainted!

      And I hardly think having to fly from California and buy a home to convalesce in in Memphis could be fairly described as "convenient".

      The need to have at least one FPP a day implying that Steve Jobs is the Anti-Christ is pretty badly coloring the judgements of the editors here, especially now that Steve is dead (or is he?) Get a new obsession, Slashdot!

    34. Re:No idea by arth1 · · Score: 1

      BTW: when I bought my friends jeep for under Bluebook I guess it was a "kickback" as well.

      No, but if you bought the Jeep for cheap from someone you had life and death power over, a flag should be raised.

    35. Re:No idea by craigminah · · Score: 1

      I too dislike this but it's people like Mickey Mantle, people who abuse their bodies with alchohol or drugs then get moved to the front of the transplant list, who really annoy me.

    36. Re:No idea by TigerTime · · Score: 2

      Yea, isn't he the guy that would buy a new car every month or so, so he didn't have to have a license plate, just so he could park in the handicap spots or wherever he wanted to?

      If he gave this guy a deal on the house for the hell of it, it'd be the first time he ever gave away as a charity case.

    37. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be so, but the situation is far from ordinary and hence deserves a special scrutiny. Our society has progressed to the point where even the *appearance* of unethical behavior, and that is what certainly applies here, draws serious attention. If the intentions were indeed innocent then the parties involved should have been aware enough of the exceptional circumstances to take steps that would satisfy any potential criticism.

      Doctor: You know, Steve, a thought just occured to me. People might look upon this transaction as an attempt to influence the normal selection process.

      Steve: Well, Doc, we certainly don't want anyone to interpret our arrangement as some sort of bribe. Let's make sure that what we do is not only legitimate but also gives the *appearance* of being legitimate.

      Doctor: Excellent idea. We have no intention to deceive, but, due to the sensitive nature of the situation, we still must "cover our asses."

    38. Re:No idea by Relayman · · Score: 1

      The Republicans are the party of the rich. They would never complain about rich people getting preferential treatment; when you're rich, it's expected. Any special treatment that Steve Jobs received was well earned because he was a self-made billionaire.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    39. Re:No idea by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Is there a better metric than money? Should it be good looks? Charitable donations? Number of Facebook friends? Slashdot Karma?

      Prognosis?

    40. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting that surgeons do not normally give organs to dying cancer patients and instead prefer to give them to young people who can live healthy lives?

    41. Re:No idea by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Wealth is direct proof of one's contributions and value to society. Poor people are poor because they can't do squat for their fellow man (that is worth paying for).

      This would be true if we abolished inheritance and all children grew up in foster homes. How rich or poor you end up depends much more on how rich or poor your parents were than any other factor. And you didn't choose your parents, like mormons claim.

    42. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're actually the closest to how the system works. Jobs had the means to locate to a region where the qualifying list for organ donations was lower. So, yes, by being able to locate to Memphis he was able to be on a shorter list than, areas like California or New York. (Where he was also listed.)

      The big issue that this article fails to mention is that the Methodist Hospitals are trying to change the rules to access the organ donation list. They are attempting to allow people to PAY the Methodist Hospital for preferential places on that list. (Also placing all non-Methoist hospitals down the list, by the way.) In light of this ploy to change the donation process, having Jobs seemingly pay the Methodist doctor for his spot on the list just doesn't bode well for the system.

    43. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the submitter is upset that this surgeon heard this nice house was on the market and decided to buy it?

      Is he trying to insinuate that the surgeon was blackmailing jobs...? IDGI

      The article is well written and articulate. Why are you being a Troll?

      There's no secret that there is a shortage of organs in the United States, and people with a lot of money usually end up getting first dibs on these organs, even when they have a terminal illness or are heavy drinkers like fellow Grateful Dead band mates Phil Lesh and Jerry Garcia.

      But in America, freedom and fairness, liberty and democracy are just as illusionary as Hollywood and Washington would have you believe.

    44. Re:No idea by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      Wealth is direct proof of one's contributions and value to society.

      Bernard Madoff

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    45. Re:No idea by idontgno · · Score: 1

      The words put into the mouths of the entities in that imaginary scenario are actually quite viable. The only problem is that HTML (especially the broken subset supported by Slashdot) doesn't have the appropriate markup for things like "sly wink" and "nudge nudge" that are the critical subtext to the under-the-table bargaining that almost-certainly actually happened.

      In other words, the bare words look implausibly innocent. The fix was put in with body language and intonation.

      Non-verbal communication. Isn't it great?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    46. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's reality

      For you. There are people that wouldn't make that choice and they don't make choices like that everyday.

      I think it's becoming far to easy for us to just say "eh, that's human nature" when it's not -- it's a 'subset of humans' nature and people that are willing to sacrifice themselves for others really do exist. I'm not making a value statement, just trying to represent :).

    47. Re:No idea by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with that system. Just make the legislators pass laws allowing it, BEFORE you secretly implement it. I'm sure the guys who vote for it will have no trouble getting re-elected*. I guess we can then start passing laws for mandatory abortions for people under certain personal wealth? After all, the minorities are taking over! Why should they get to take up the limited resources of our country, when there are so many more deserving (and wealthy) people.

      *This was supposes to be a joke, but the more I thought about it the more worried I became that it might just be true.

    48. Re:No idea by CubicleZombie · · Score: 1

      How about not being allowed to have more children than you can afford to take care of? I know so many people who stopped at one or two children because they can't afford more. But so many people who can't afford any have as many as the feel like. Or worse, they have more just to reap additional public assistance.

      Or combine the two concepts into a bad horror movie where the people who have more children than they can afford are harvested for transplant organs to rich people who wear turtleneck sweaters.

      --
      :wq
    49. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever. To be rich and protect your assets and your wealth by employing the use of an LLC is absolutely standard operating procedure. People working for Steve Jobs probably created and dissolved dozens of LLCs to handle similar transactions.

    50. Re:No idea by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      I work for a healthcare company and that little exchange would be an ethics violation....the doctor would be required to purchase the house at fair market value.....you are not allowed to get property from current or former patients at a discount because of services you rendered...lots of other healthcare companies probably work the same way...

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    51. Re:No idea by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Again, equating money with your worth as an individual or "success."

      It's the meme of the last 30 years and it's total bullshit. We've got plenty of billionaires in the U.S. that nobody will give a shit about after they've been dead for 10 years. Yeah.. that's real success.

    52. Re:No idea by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      do you have kids? ( that you acknowledged? ) just because steve "did more" while he was alive, your kids or you could be able to do more in the future, we dont know.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    53. Re:No idea by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      you talking about woz?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    54. Re:No idea by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Well that's the question. Were the current rules even followed? Sure the system is currently for profit, but there are an infinite number of 'levels' this for profit orientation can take. Is a doctor allowed to take a 'gift' from a patient, then give that patient preferential treatment over another patient? Just saying the system is for profit, therefore everything that results in profit is OK is a strange way of looking at things.

    55. Re:No idea by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Nah, that would just create more orphans for the government to take care of. And if you wait for the children to grow up, the parent's organs are likely to be worthless from years of abuse.

      How about setting minimal standards for child care? Anyone not meeting looses custody of their children AND has to work community service taking care of other children.

    56. Re:No idea by __aaqxjh2299 · · Score: 1

      It boils down to a question of is medicine a for profit industry or not.

      Respectfully, it does not. Insurers and financiers of medical care are not a part of this, as I am aware. The sale of organs is illegal. The process by which recipients are selected are subject to regulation and oversight in order to ensure that those selections are made with regard to medical condition and need. We don't need billionaires taking advantage of land scams to bribe transplant doctors to violate their ethics.

    57. Re:No idea by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      THe whole point of this exercise is that we should ALL be equal. You do not need to apply metrics to find value in a human life. There is no man that ever lived on this planet that is my superior as a human. We are all equal humans. Fame, fortune do not a human make.

      --
      Good-bye
    58. Re:No idea by vlm · · Score: 1

      Respectfully, it does not. The sale of organs is illegal.

      That inconsistency is the problem. I would argue the highest goal/rule is profit under the current system (regardless of right or wrong, it is what it is). Stuff like making organ selling illegal is simply wrong and goes against the grain of the overall system. Under a socialized or corporatized or fascistic system, it would be consistent to make it illegal.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    59. Re:No idea by CubicleZombie · · Score: 1

      I believe that my worth to society is equal to the value I add to it. So I guess I'm the odd one here. That does explain a lot of the political views I see on Slashdot.

      --
      :wq
    60. Re:No idea by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0

      I think maybe you're a little naive.

      Considering that you get your news from an ad-supported site known to sensationalize, can you really claim to the opposite?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    61. Re:No idea by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I can never understand humans who can only value themselves against other humans. IN a universe full of inanimate matter, each one of us is a god.

      --
      Good-bye
    62. Re:No idea by CubicleZombie · · Score: 1

      None of that changes the fact that Steve Jobs would get a liver transplant before you.

      --
      :wq
    63. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a guy who, as a billionaire, let his child live on welfare.

      So, no. He wouldn't do that.

    64. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Anyone not meeting looses custody of their children...

      It's "loses", not "looses."

    65. Re:No idea by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "Badly written article..."

      It isn't an article. It's an attempt to get /. to sieve an article from the detritus of muckraking.

      Seemingly connected data points does not a story make, as the line between libel/hearsay and the reality of the matter becomes too thin to perceive. Even Perry White would have had Clark and Jimmie back on the street if they brought this one back to the Daily Planet, especially with Jimmie writing the headline.

    66. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have never imagined Steve Jobs having such a nice conversation.

      Steve: Give me a liver doc! I'll make it worth your while...
      Doctor: Let me see what I can do, Steve.

      Now that's more Jobsian.

    67. Re:No idea by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      Jobs bought it for 850k.

      [...]

      From TFA, Eason paid 850K, which is the same as the LLC paid, I think.

      So, if the doctor bought it for the same amount that Jobs had paid for it, where is the impropriety? If the surgeon could have paid the exact same amount two weeks before, I don't see how there was any favoritism or sweetheart deals involved.

      Just as likely: visiting and treating Mr. Jobs at the home was what made him aware of the existence of the home and the possibility to purchase it.

    68. Re:No idea by houghi · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that people who always look for the bad in people always seem to find it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    69. Re:No idea by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      let's flip this:

      Judge: Nice place you have here Criminal
      Criminal:Thanks
      Judge: If you ever decide to get rid of it, let me know. I might be interested in it.
      Criminal: You know Judge, you've been real good to me. Tell you what, I'll sell it to you for a song to show my appreciation. It's a tough market out there now, and it would be nice to get rid of it.
      Criminal: Wow .. what a great guy you are. Thanks

      Nah, no conflict of interest in that!

    70. Re:No idea by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Wealth is direct proof of one's contributions and value to society. Poor people are poor because they can't do squat for their fellow man (that is worth paying for). Why in God's name would we want to treat them as if they are more valuable than they are?

      I think God would disagree with you using his name.

    71. Re:No idea by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      That's what it seems like happened.

      This was the chancellor or something along those lines' house. It might be the doctor didn't think was worth 1.4 million but when he heard 850 he changed his tune.

    72. Re:No idea by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I thought that was how the US medical system was supposed to work?
      It is a private, for profit, institution. It is not a bribe or a kickback, be bought his treatment like everyone else.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    73. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      spoken like a true donkey.

    74. Re:No idea by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't for profit for the donor of the liver. It was out of the kindness of their heart while it was still functioning. Face it, if asshat douches like Steve Jobs can buy their way to the head of the organ line, well then, fuck them all, I ain't donating my organs they can rot along with douche bags who think they are entitled to but their way to the head of the queue in front of more deserving and likely better outcome patients. Acts like this will have a real impact on the willingness of people to donate their organs after death.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    75. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, this is a dumb question, but can a liver that's already been transplanted once be donated again? (i.e. I walk out of the hospital with a new liver. A few years later I die from something that doesn't hurt the liver. Can it then be given to someone else? If not, is it a physical, ethical, or legal reason?)

    76. Re:No idea by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I always assume the worst and am so seldom let down.

    77. Re:No idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in New Zealand the rich go overseas to get a transplant. They get the same chance as an average person when it comes to transplants. You can't buy a transplant here. Therefore they have to go to a country where you can buy your way to the top of the line. South Korea, the USA etc.
      We have socialised medicine and it works.

  2. very moving by amoeba1911 · · Score: 2

    Let's just say Dr. James Eason was moved by Steve Jobs.... TO A BIGGER HOUSE!

    1. Re:very moving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. James Eason, also known as... House, M.D.

    2. Re:very moving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHH

  3. Mysterious...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clearly LCHG means "Livers Can't Hinder Greatness" - he wanted limited liability for his failing organ.

  4. Re:This just in... by girlintraining · · Score: 2

    ...so naturally we have to assume there was a conspiracy to kill him.

    Conversely, for people who believe Steve was a really nice guy... we can also discuss the conspiracy to save him from the conspiracy to kill him.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  5. Re:This just in... by mynamestolen · · Score: 1

    Why didn't they just so so?

    --
    work in progress
  6. DIBS by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1
    I got Woz's house..... called it.

    Dibs, called it again.

    1. Re:DIBS by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      Someone else take his ex girlfriend. Do not want.

    2. Re:DIBS by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Someone else take his ex girlfriend. Do not want.

      I would imagine the feeling would be mutual.

      (Nothing personal, it's just that this is Slashdot)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  7. Yeah, so? by Megane · · Score: 1

    So what are you saying, it should have been turned into a "Steve Jobs Lived Here" museum with nobody living there forever after? People live in houses that other people used to live in all the time.

    Don't blame me, I hit -1 slownewsday in the firehose. Now that I'm awake, maybe I should've hit -1 stupid.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    1. Re:Yeah, so? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      You mean this isn't happening with all his other properties?

      Apply fanboys must be slackin'.

    2. Re:Yeah, so? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The point is that this is very fishy business that suggests that Jobs basically bribed the head of the transplant committee with a house in order to get a transplant that he shouldn't have gotten.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Yeah, so? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2

      The issue would be if, for example, Steve jobs secret LLC bought the house for 1.3 million and then re-sold it to the doctor who performed his surgery for 850k and that was significantly different from market rates.

      From the looks of it they bought and sold for 850k on a property appraised before the 2008 crash at 1.3-1.4 mill.

    4. Re:Yeah, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks can be a bit deceiving in this case.

      I looked very carefully at buying this house before it was expensively renovated -- it was the one severely neglected, run-down house in Morningside Park. Then, if I recall correctly, there was a fire that took out part of the interior.

      Very expensively (and not all that well) renovated, and sold to the U of M guy at an utterly unjustifiable price for the quality that was represented in the work. Not the best taste shown by the U of M guy, either. (And if I recall correctly he lost the house as part of some financial scandal, but someone else can check it -- that is why Jobs' LLC could acquire it from the source it did... and at what I'd say was still above logical market price for a house in that neighborhood.

      There is no smoking gun here, at all. Look at the actual, objective facts and you will see that.

  8. What. The. Hell, slashdot? by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, so. It's a gossip piece, but it belongs on Slashdot's homepage because it involves Steve Jobs in a semi-tangential sort of way? Right, OK.

    It is extremely common for people who happen to know another person to be cut a nice deal when selling property. In fact, I might even say that is normal. Jobs knew a guy, guy wanted to buy his house, Jobs sold it to him, end of story NO ONE GIVES A SHIT.

    I'm not even sure what the summary is implying, and I really don't feel it is worth taking the time to find out. This isn't even "news", it's just sensationalistic crap (I'm assuming, I only skimmed the summary).

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    1. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's implying some members of the county commission suspect the house might have been a kickback to get on top of the transplant list.

    2. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO ONE GIVES A SHIT.

      People give a shit if Jobs was buying himself a privileged position and getting surgery before others who weren't rich bastards.

    3. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by Antipater · · Score: 2

      The implication is that Jobs found a doctor and said "Hey, want a nice house? How's about giving me a little bump up that transplant list, eh?" Corruption in medicine, playing with people's lives, and such. From TFS, it doesn't appear to be backed up by much more than some coincidental and very fortuitous timing, but it's a nice conspiracy theory.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    4. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Jobs certainly did seem to get his transplant rather quickly (although admittedly i'm more familiar with kidney transplants, where the wait can be up to seven years depending on where you live.) But i'm sure there are numerous ways to shorten the wait if you happen to be incredibly rich, most of them easier and more circumspect than bribing your doctor with cheap real estate.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    5. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      You might feel different if your kid was waiting in line for an organ they needed to survive a lifetime, and it appeared rich dudes were cutting in line to get just a couple extra years.

    6. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Well the thing is, this isn't about jobs. I fully expect someone with as much money as him to want to do whatever is in his power to get himself a replacement liver....even breaking the law. I dunno about you, but I put my own health above the law and if some law was standing in the way of what I saw as something that would allow me to live longer or live normally longer, guess what, I would probably do it too.

      Thats why, the rules are not for the patients, they are for the doctors, the people who make the decisions. They are the one who have final say, and the ones who need to be above reproach. This deal stinks.

      It wouldn't stink so much if he paid a normal market value, or if it was a direct transfer from one wealthy man to a surgeon who did a procedure for him, after the fact. However, it was at a low price, through a shady llc, and not just the surgeon who performed the operation but, one who ultimately decided who gets what.

      Just as a judge should recuse himself from a case that he is too connected with to appear impartial, this man should have avoided taking advantage of a deal that casts such obvious doubt on his impartiality.

      Whether or not his motives were pure, he is tainted by the form of this deal, the whole LLC business says to me that somebody was doing something shady, though, it was probably just jobs and his accountants using some tactic to save money.

      All in all... its not impossible that the doctor is telling the truth but, I think the investigation is entirely warranted, because it certainly looks shady.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    7. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      But, correct me if I'm wrong, there is zero evidence that happened, correct? Only innuendo and "questions"?

      Maybe it's also time for Apple to answer the question of whether or not Steve Jobs liked to rape chickens? I'm not saying he did, mind you, I just think the question should be asked.*

      *Note: I'm not actually asking the question, because it's stupid. Just like this story. The only point in "asking" a question like this, without actual evidence, is to incite outrage. Nothing more. I'm sure someone on the transplant list might feel differently about this story. Not because they should, but because it was designed to target their feelings against this doctor/Apple/Steve Jobs. Why? I don't know, ad revenues is my best guess. I'm just saying that Slashdot shouldn't encourage it, because "news reporting" like this, frankly, belongs in tabloids and sites like TimeCube, not on Slashdot.

      Mind, if there is actual evidence that the doctor took a bribe to get Jobs pushed up the transplant list, that is a little different. It still probably shouldn't be on Slashdot, but at least I'd know it wasn't sensationalist trash designed to incite rage for no particular reason besides money (other than, possibly, attempts to ignite class warfare and/or Apple hatred. I'm fine with Apple hate, BTW, I just think people should dislike them for what they've actually done, not crap like this).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    8. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by jabberwock · · Score: 1

      The doctor himself said: "Fair question." During a public hearing. Whether the story is worthy of slashdot or not, I wouldn't judge. But the "news reporting" itself is actually exemplary.

    9. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I dunno about you, but I put my own health above the law and if some law was standing in the way of what I saw as something that would allow me to live longer or live normally longer, guess what, I would probably do it too.

      The law is largely irrelevant, but I put honour above my health. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I received a transplant that someone else needed more.

    10. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was told by multiple doctors that I'd gain a few years, I'd most definitely not waste money and someone else's potential for a couple of decades. I guess ethics rarely gets you rich though.

    11. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      The sale of the house at well below market value through a shell corporation is a red flag, so it's different than an unfounded chicken-related accusation. I'm not ready to bring out my pitchfork and fire up a torch yet, but I'm glad somebody's looking at it.

    12. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there's a lot of "implication" and "innuendo," but there's no real evidence pointing to any misbehavior.

      The "actual fact" is that Jobs was on the list for at least a month or two before he bought the house, numerous doctors were involved in assessing his candidacy and eligibility, and there is nothing that a single doctor could do to "speed up" his transplant - even if he gave that doctor an 850,000 house for free, the doctor would still need to convince other doctors and list administrators that his patient was a better candidate, and should somehow be at the top of the list. Is there evidence of Eason or Jobs paying off the other medical professionals involved in donor organ assignment? I see nothing in any of the links to indicate that there is.

      Realistically, I expect what happened is Jobs bought the house only to recover in, with the intention of selling it after he recovered, and the doctor, having been to the house numerous times to followup with his patient, took a shine to the house and said "Hey, if you're selling it, I'm definitely interested. This is a nice place."

      If there were "kickbacks" of some sort, I'd think Jobs could make the deal a little sweeter than "here, you can have the house I recovered in at my cost, doctor." I'd expect something more like, "Here doc, have a house." or "Here doc, why don't you let me buy you that house, an Aspen ski lodge, and a Tuscan villa for vacationing."

    13. Re:What. The. Hell, slashdot? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, and I would like to think I would feel the same way. However, none of us has more money than god and a desperate need for a new liver either.

      I suspect its a lot easier to get over those feelings, or at least be willing to deal with them, when you have the opportunity and need to do something about it...and a lot easier to moralize about it when you have neither.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  9. I knew it by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    First they kill Michael Jackson, then they kill Steve Jobs. And they charge a month's salary to see them for 10 minutes.

    We have to get rid of these doctors from society, what good do they do?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:I knew it by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      First they kill Michael Jackson, then they kill Steve Jobs. And they charge a month's salary to see them for 10 minutes.

      We have to get rid of these doctors from society, what good do they do?

      Roll up your sleeves and bend over.

      You're about to find out ....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this doctor had nothing to do with Jobs' death, he actually prolonged it.

  10. not about murder; about improper financial benefit by SuperBanana · · Score: 0

    They're not implying that he was killed for the mansion. They're implying that Easton benefited financially from an organ transplant. Perhaps, for example, he looked the other way at whether Jobs was qualified medically to receive the organ. Or received the house so he wouldn't bring it to anyone's attention that Jobs was doing the organ-transplant version of carpetbagging.

    Jobs wasn't just "sort of" a jerk - he used his wealth to exploit the organ transplant system by having "residence" in the state with the lowest waiting list.

    The doctor never should have accepted the house. The doubt cast on the impartiality of the organ transplant system and medical profession, even if there was nothing actually improper in the doctor's behavior, is trouble enough.

  11. Re:This just in... by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let the litany of Jobs worshippers now feast upon all my +1 funnies with -1 overrateds. I suppose had I made a joke about how Apple's iDied product isn't selling so well, or another iSomething joke, it'd be -1000 flamebait and they'd have to call Malda out of retirement to help rewrite the code so it'd be more resistant to having everyone on the internet simultaniously facepalm, lol, and then -1 a single comment. *maniacal laugh* Soon my pretties...

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  12. This Just In ... by MilwaukeeMadAss · · Score: 1

    A large underground storage facility was located beneath a Memphis home today and it contains the largest stockpile of black turtlenecks known to man.

  13. it's about the prerogative of the 1%ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It sure starts to look like Jobs bought his way to the front of the transplant line, his life being "worth more" than the less rich people in front of him.

    That's why people hate the 1%ers - they think they are worth more than the rest of us.

  14. Who CARES! by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

    Seriously who DOES care? Odds are whatever happened wasn't illegal as it would have came out.

    --

    Gorkman

    1. Re:Who CARES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares? How about all the people who medically could have had a better chance at life with the organ that went to Jobs, who bought his doctor a house to look the other way about his chances of life with that organ? And we all know how that turned out.

      Doctors carefully triage cases and use the available organ pool for the people who have the best chance of life if they get the transplant. Being rich does not mean your extra 2 weeks of life should outweigh the average person's extra 20 years of life.

  15. Mod parent -1 Flamebait by psergiu · · Score: 1

    Unfortunatelly /. is missing a moderation option for the articles themselves.

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re:Mod parent -1 Flamebait by mynamestolen · · Score: 1

      exactly what I was thinking when I scored first post

      --
      work in progress
  16. unbelievable by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Exactly. This isn't even tabloid level news.

    Here's a clue for those who don't understand how LLCs work or why people use them: This kind of thing is done every. single. day. Rich people form LLCs and trusts to move and shelter assets and to avoid taxes. Not-so-rich people do it, too, because it's a good vehicle for keeping business costs outside personal finances. Something almost exactly like this happens all the time with everyone from the small profitable restaurant owner up through corporate middle managers and CEOs.

    I know contractors who get paid through their personal corporation. They do contract work, and the payment goes from one company to another for the work. The company pays the contractor(s). There is nothing all that uncommon, and just because it involves the house of a famous dead person does not make it news.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  17. This is why there should be a market for organs by trout007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the type of stuff that always happens when there is a prohibition on something. It makes the gatekeepers so powerful that people will use whatever means necessary to influence them.

    Acknowledging that people own their bodies would allow them to sell parts of their bodies. Those that can be harvested while they are alive like bone marrow, kidneys, parts of the liver, would be pretty straight forward. Those that are harvested after death might involve getting a deal on life insurance if you transfer ownership of your organs to the insurance company after death, or you could will them to a family member.

    This would make organs so readily available that no black market would exist.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the type of stuff that always happens when there is a prohibition on something. It makes the gatekeepers so powerful that people will use whatever means necessary to influence them.

      Acknowledging that people own their bodies would allow them to sell parts of their bodies. Those that can be harvested while they are alive like bone marrow, kidneys, parts of the liver, would be pretty straight forward. Those that are harvested after death might involve getting a deal on life insurance if you transfer ownership of your organs to the insurance company after death, or you could will them to a family member.

      This would make organs so readily available that no black market would exist.

      So the logical result of this would be selling donor organs to the highest bidder (rather than signing it over to 'medical use'), in other words: only the wealthy (or well insured, if insurance companies can act as middle men - but it works out to be the same) would end up with transplant organs... Which is exactly what you appear to be against - only now it would be open and above board.

    2. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by elsurexiste · · Score: 2

      There are a few reasons for a market prohibition. The first and foremost is that it coerces the poor. Imagine someone in extreme poverty: he'll no doubt sell one of his kidneys (IIRC, it's the most required organ), permanently impairing himself.

      A more reasonable way is to make organ donation compulsory after death and/or live transplants only from family members older than, say, 35.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    3. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by vlm · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly what you appear to be against - only now it would be open and above board.

      Honest and less corrupt. Rather than paying off a doc and/or administrators, you'd be paying off the donor's family. Honest in that instead of ridiculous claims of treating everyone equally, they'd honestly explain its ranked by $ which is how its always been done anyway and probably always will be done.

      The problem with this scheme is I see is much like life insurance related murders, you'd now have organ donation murders. Or "I hate my kids so I'll drink heavily to make sure they make no money off my liver".

      One argument against changing it is we seem to be on the cusp of being able to grow our own as needed, so if we waste time and money implementing it, later generations might look back on it like we'd look back on medical leech farm legislation, WTF were they thinking, etc.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Right now the donor gets zero compensation so there is a very limited supply. This pushes the value up which makes the people in charge of distribution very powerful. This power attracts corruption by those with the means to do it.

      A market is the exact opposite. By allowing compensation to the donor there will be a vastly larger supply of organs. This will push prices down and make them more available.

      Even if this wasn't the case I would still be for it because to reject the argument means that you accept that other people own your body.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    5. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I think this would lead to preemptive organ harvesting. Stem cells can be used to provide a better product, without all the nasty side-effects of organ rejection, or innocent, healthy people disappearing (or ending up in a political prison).

    6. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would make organs so readily available for the rich that no black market would exist.

      There. I've corrected that for you.

    7. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Right now there are price controls on the supply of organs. The price is zero. How do you think that is effecting supply? If you allow people to get paid for their own body the supply will increase dramatically. This increase in supply will allow more people to get organs. Sure the rich will be able to buy their way to the front of the line but that is true with everything. The rich have much better and safer cars, houses, ect than other people. But this also helps innovation by allowing the development costs be borne by the new adopters.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    8. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by arose · · Score: 1

      No, the logical result is killing people to harvest organs.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    9. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Coercion is bad...therefore harvesting should be compulsory? The idea that paying people money is coercion is rooted in some socialist mentality that every citizen should get paid a comfortable living just for breathing--which is fine, but no socialist has ever actually tried to realize such a plan.

    10. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      This would make organs so readily available that no black turtleneck market would exist.

      iFTFY

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      Actually, adding a monetary incentive will drive away the altruistic element and may, in fact, reduce the supply. It's called the overjustification effect. You Are Not So Smart run a nice post on the subject here.

      As for owning your own body... What's the matter with donation after brain death? Technically, you are dead and incapable of having property.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    12. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Interesting theory. But it seems the effects is strongest for things that people already like to do. From the abysmal availability of organs I would think this would have no effect. Also a free market would not force payments only allow for them.

      You have to give consent before you die so the motivation has to apply to the living.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    13. Re:This is why there should be a market for organs by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup, I've never seen a country that truly had socialized medicine when it comes to stuff like this.

      The only difference is that in some countries preferential treatment has a clearly advertised price, and in others it involves some kind of side deal.

      Either way, I've yet to see a head of state wait in line for an organ anywhere. Actually, I've yet to see one wait in any kind of line for anything anywhere, unless it was for a planned PR photo.

      The value of various currencies does vary from place to place. In some places cash isn't worth as much as reputation with the power brokers, and celebrity has substantial value in some places. However, stuff like this rarely comes down to pure merit or true random selection.

  18. Dun dun dunnnnn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the summary is missing is a dramatic sound effect at the end.

    LCHG, LLC was dissolved in February 2012.
    DUN DUN DUNNNN

  19. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone should call you a wambulance.

  20. Re:not about murder; about improper financial bene by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

    Yep... for someone like Steve Jobs, a 1 million dollar 6000 square feet home is basically a tiny shack - like his own private hospital room. It's quite obvious they got it purely to cheat the transplant system. The doctor needs to be held accountable, his actions were negligent at best and quite possibly criminal. Giving a liver to someone who has almost no chance of surviving while other younger healthier people are dying because they didn't get the liver they need. This is not good. There needs to be an investigation.

  21. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs:
    Dude, if you have the money, want to live, and have been working the system your whole life( The Game of Life) then whatever happened was unfortunately acceptable.
    The laws were clear, it just means he moved at a pace greased by money(means).....

    Surgeon:
    He did not benefit directly, but indirectly from the coincidence of circumstance and jumping on an opportunity that presented itself. The only thing in contention is: did he really accept a bribe, or can we make you think he accepted a bribe, or how to fuck the Surgeon over because we are envious of his luck.

    If there is proof that he sped SJ through the list or something, then it is the only basis for exploitation of the system put in place to benefit all human beings regardless of social status, even the rich. I believe these systems also take into account how critical a patients situation is, not to mention if large donations are on the table which could be used to keep others alive on life support or fund artificial organ growth projects which in turn would be owned by the state as a result and thus abolish such debacles for future peoples.

  22. Re:not about murder; about improper financial bene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent has the best explanation of the problem I've seen so far.

    This certainly LOOKS corrupt, and it casts doubt on the entire system. If being rich enough means you can buy your way to the head of the line before people who could medically benefit more, than something is pretty broken.

    There are a lot of questions here that need answering.

  23. Grilled? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    With fava beans and a nice Chianti?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  24. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forgot to mention, there will always be doubt in every situation as most human beings in general still follow the animal and thus can never truly be unbiased and level handed which is the only way to maintain integrity. Not to mention we can be an envious lot when biased.

  25. Wow. by rpresser · · Score: 1

    It's amazing. Just when I think Slashdot can't possibly find a subject I'm less interested in than Orbitz's decisions about what to promote to Mac users ... it does.

  26. karma? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    fat lot of good it did him.

    Wouldn't calling dibs (right of first refusal?, DRTFTUA) on Steve's house be another conflict of interest for the doctor? He'd then have reason to get rid of the current owner.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:karma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      fat lot of good it did him.

      You begin to understand the problem, you just need to look a little bit further.

      The system prioritizes those who could most benefit medically. That is, if you are likely to die even with the transplant, then you should be behind the person who might have a 80% chance of 20 or 30 more years of life with that same organ. If Jobs "greased the skids" to get himself to the head of the list even though he was likely to die with the transplant, then there are some serious questions to be answered.

      Clearly the commissioners believe there is enough suspicion to investigate this more closely. It has the appearance of corruption on the part of the doctor and of Jobs.

    2. Re:karma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a much bigger loophole that he exploited to get his transplant that's not even being discussed. Why are we even discussing Tennessee? Jobs lived in California. He was only on the list in Tennessee because he could afford to establish a residence in every state with a list that he wanted his name on and because he had access to a private jet to get him anywhere in the country on a moment's notice. The rest of us would be stuck waiting for a local organ to become available. If we want to ferret out corruption, why are we focusing on one doctor? Why not focus on the systematic flaws that allow the wealthy to get preferential treatment. A fairly simple law that would only allow someone to put their name on the list in only one state would make things more fair for everyone.

    3. Re:karma? by dead_user · · Score: 1

      Just hope you don't live in Wyoming or DC if you have to be on a single state list.

    4. Re:karma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or just a national list? probably sucks to need an organ in Idaho or North Dakota

    5. Re:karma? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since when is American health care system about "fair"? If you really wanted that, you'd have public healthcare long ago.

    6. Re:karma? by ganjadude · · Score: 0

      so it is fair that everyone should pay the same amount even if some people need more care? why should a health nut be paying for you or I to smoke? they shouldnt.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:karma? by Ferzerp · · Score: 1

      A regional list for small states could work, but you have to be able to get to the organ location/meet the organ halfway/etc within a pretty short span of time. If you're a resident of Maine, and an organ became available in California, it's not going to do you much good.

    8. Re:karma? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      so it is fair that everyone should pay the same amount even if some people need more care?

      Yes, so long as people don't actively do something that obviously and significantly negatively affects their health (like smoking, or, say, parkour). When they do, they should pay more if they require treatment as a consequence.

    9. Re:karma? by moderatorrater · · Score: 3, Funny

      There are problems with the American system, but this isn't one of them. The organs have to be transplanted within hours of being harvested. Steve Jobs was willing and able to travel thousands of miles at the drop of a hat to get there in time. It's not reasonable or feasible to do that for everyone.

      Prohibiting him from getting the organ equally makes no sense. It's based on need, so he was the one with the most need who could get there.

    10. Re:karma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a much bigger loophole that he exploited to get his transplant that's not even being discussed. Why are we even discussing Tennessee? Jobs lived in California. He was only on the list in Tennessee because he could afford to establish a residence in every state with a list that he wanted his name on and because he had access to a private jet to get him anywhere in the country on a moment's notice. The rest of us would be stuck waiting for a local organ to become available.

      That's not actually true, you can register with with multiple Organ Procurement and Transplantation Networks (OPTN) without having to have a residence in their area. The OPTN may require that you be able to show up in a certain amount of time after being notified of an organ offer (in the case of a liver it can be on ice for 12 hours or so--time enough for a plane ride). As for the "access to a private jet" thing, well that's true, but commercial airlines are pretty good about getting transplant recipients priority status, and if you can't afford commercial airfare there are volunteer groups (like Angel Flight) that can get you there as well...

    11. Re:karma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe it's a single state list in that you only get organs from that state.

      If it's a list by state, you can establish multiple residences you can get on multiple lists. If you can afford 50 homes, you can be on the list 50 times, and if there's a matching organ close to you, you're more likely to get it than someone across the country - and that's determined by your residence on the state list. The lists are also prioritized by state, so California will have a longer list than Wyoming.

      The Wyoming list would probably be a pretty good one to be on too, since fewer people would be on it.

      Jobs gamed the system to get the liver, and did it because he's a multibillionaire.

      It should be illegal. We can't punish Jobs, since he's dead, but we can go after the crooked doctor.

      Oh, and someone else who might have lived much longer with the liver Jobs got also died, because Jobs gamed the system.

    12. Re:karma? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      so you want it "fair" in your terms, not "fair" in what the obama admin is trying to push through. ok, i can see that. at least you are honest with what you want, and I can agree with you, which is why I am against a "public option"

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    13. Re:karma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the US has the best healthcare (and government) that money can buy.

      If you don't have enough money, that's your problem.

    14. Re:karma? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Single state list in this instance means you only need sign up in your state of residence to be on a nation wide list.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    15. Re:karma? by icebike · · Score: 1

      A regional list for small states could work, but you have to be able to get to the organ location/meet the organ halfway/etc within a pretty short span of time. If you're a resident of Maine, and an organ became available in California, it's not going to do you much good.

      Really?

      Jobs bought his house several days prior to his operation, then flew to Tennessee from California. There appeared to be plenty of time for that.

      Are you saying there isn't enough time to put an organ on a Leer jet for a direct flight?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    16. Re:karma? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      We can punish him.
      He just won't care.

    17. Re:karma? by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      Just bump up the tax on cigarettes to pay for the additional medical costs.
      Might actually stop some people buying them.

      Duh. Thats not an argument against universal health care.

    18. Re:karma? by knarf · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs was willing and able to travel thousands of miles at the drop of a hat to get there in time. It's not reasonable or feasible to do that for everyone.

      As long as 'everyone' consists of the relatively short list (compared to the total population) of people in need of a donor organ I don't see why it would be a problem to put one of them on a plane towards wherever a compatible organ just became available. That is what insurance is for after all. I don't see the problem in using existing infrastructure to potentially save some lives.

      Should I add that I live in Europe, and thus am a contributor and beneficiary of a socialised health care system? By each according to their means, to each according to their needs...

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    19. Re:karma? by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      Mentioning Parkour as a high-risk factor that should increase insurance premiums is a perfect example of why trying to work out a global heuristic for self-imposed health risk is nigh on impossible. Particularly interesting is the interaction between a lifestyle choice, freestyle walking, and a preexisting condition, such as an inner-ear problem, which makes that choice more dangerous to one person than another. I'm not sure that a single system can be used as blanket cover for any significantly large population and still equitably cover both those whose healthcare will be expensive no matter how they live, and those who insist on self-destructive choices.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    20. Re:karma? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be perfect, though. It just has to be better than the current system - which virtually every public healthcare system in a first world country other than US manages to do.

    21. Re:karma? by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Where do you draw the line on that, though? Make police officers and firefighters pay more, because they are more likely to be injured in their work? What about coal miners? People who drive more than 15 miles to work, because they are more likely to be in car accidents? Do we require documentation from men about their sexual and masturbation habits, because ejaculating at least once a week is linked to significantly-reduced prostate cancer?

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    22. Re:karma? by loustic · · Score: 1

      Yea, sure, public health care is much better ....
      Go to the UK and see how they decide to give you treatment for one eye only and not two, or to deny you cancer treatment because you are "too old"... people go abroad to get treatments.
      Same goes for Canada and soon for the US as well.

    23. Re:karma? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I actually lived in Canada for a while, and before that in New Zealand, so unlike most American armchair libertarians, I have seen several systems personally and can meaningfully compare them side by side.

      And it's not just me. Time and again, polls done in Canada tell that vast majority prefer to not go abroad to get treatments.

    24. Re:karma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Residency doesn't matter with regard to transplant location. A persons willingness to travel does matter. We see a transplant facility in GA and we live in FL. We saw the same docs when we lived in NJ. We have other transplant family friends who live in FL, traveled to GA for transplant and now go to OH for follow up services. If need be, we might even go to CO if our daughter needed another transplant (hoping it never comes to that!).

      Additionally, it is the doctors you see for your condition who can list you in your own region or another region. We know families who have listed their children in up to 3 regions.

      Please understand more about the process before you rail against it.

      That said, I am sure that Jobs did pull a few strings to get his transplant. But I also feel, we, a whole, got the better end of that deal with all the amazing advances in technology Jobs lead even in the last few years of his transplant-extended life.

    25. Re:karma? by rthille · · Score: 1

      What's the correlation with multiple times per day?

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Artificial organ scarcity by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's pretty much how the world works.

    And that is the way the world should work. People should be able to use money to buy things they want, encouraging more people to supply them. The problem here is that we have decided this shouldn't apply to organs, so the supply is severely restricted. If organs were treated like a normal commodity they would be far more plentiful because way more people would be donors. I have the donor dot on my drivers license, and was paid exactly $0 to volunteer.

    Another problem is motorcycle helmet laws. By preventing lethal head injuries on otherwise young healthy individuals, we are removing a great source of organs. Maybe anyone who has volunteered to be a donor should be allowed to ride without a helmet.

    1. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by SpeZek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does Poe's Law apply to capitalists too?

      I honestly can't tell if you're serious.

    2. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by bandy · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to a doctor friend of mine who rides, the helmet keeps the brainstem working long enough to keep the body working so the organs can be donated.

      --
      "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
    3. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      And that is the way the world should work.

      By telling poor people: "tough luck, organs are awarded based on ability to pay and nothing else"?

      "Sorry, 25 year old father of two, we know you were waiting on a heart transplant for that congenital defect that the hospital just discovered....but it went to Dick Cheney instead, cuz he's a rich bastard and you're not."

    4. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By telling poor people: "tough luck, organs are awarded based on ability to pay and nothing else"?

      Why not? That is the way we distribute food, clothing and housing. Why should organs be different? What you are missing, is that if there were no artificial restrictions on organs, they would be far more plentiful. Most people don't check the donor box, because there is no incentive to do so. If they were prepaid $100, many more would do so.

    5. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by catmistake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's pretty much how the world works.

      And that is the way the world should work. People should be able to use money to buy things they want, encouraging more people to supply them. The problem here is that we have decided this shouldn't apply to organs, so the supply is severely restricted. If organs were treated like a normal commodity they would be far more plentiful because way more people would be donors.

      The problem is that human organs are not a normal commidity. Money doesn't and shouldn't give you the right to someone's organs. Money doesn't make you more deserving of the right to live any more than money makes you more deserving of death. If you believe that if you are rich enough then you should be allowed to pay for the right to have, say, the organs that will be available once someone is taken off life support, you are not only putting pressure on a situation that already has deep ethical concern for the doctor and the patient's family, what you are in effect saying is that if you are rich enough, you should be allowed to pay to kill someone. To put it another way, if you believe it is ethical for you to be able to pay to have some available organ, then you must believe it is perfectly ethical that I can pay to prevent you from getting said available organ. Ultimately the argument for an organ market is an egocentric one, and it doesn't meet the criterial of universalization, meaning that what you wish is not applicable to all under similar circumstances, and it therefore cannot be ethical.

    6. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As opposed to telling people at random, "Sorry, we know you were waiting on a heart transplant, but there are five people a month who will die without a heart transplant, but there are only two of the people a month who die actually signed up to be organ donors, even though there are ten a month whose hearts would be suitable for transplant."

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by arose · · Score: 1

      As opposed to a list that takes prognosis into account.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    8. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people don't check the donor box, because there is no incentive to do so.

      Seriously? You need an incentive just to check a fucking box on a piece of paper to allow someone to do something that will in no way affect you?

      You people are pathetic.

    9. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Mullen · · Score: 1

      By telling poor people: "tough luck, organs are awarded based on ability to pay and nothing else"?

      Why not? That is the way we distribute food, clothing and housing. Why should organs be different? What you are missing, is that if there were no artificial restrictions on organs, they would be far more plentiful. Most people don't check the donor box, because there is no incentive to do so. If they were prepaid $100, many more would do so.

      Because Capitalism should not be applied to EVERYTHING since Capitalism is not a cure all for all problems.

      --
      Linux O Muerte!
    10. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF are you talking about? Poor people cannot get transplants. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single operation.

      Everyone--and I mean EVERYONE--from the doctors, nurses, the transport company, etc is getting paid EXCEPT the donor.

    11. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      But still has fewer available organs than needed or could theoretically be available since potential donors have no incentive to donate.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The problem is that human organs are not a normal commidity. ...

      So because of your squeamishness on a difficult topic we don't reward people for becoming an organ donor, we outlaw kidney donations where compensation is involved, etc.

      The only little problem with your moral stance is that TENS OF THOUSANDS of people die each year because of it. Thanks - I hope you need an organ transplant someday.

    13. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Well, to be honest, Cheney's firearms skills factor in too. You wouldn't want to have a hunting accident, would you?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    14. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The problem is that human organs are not a normal commidity.

      Yes they are. You only think they are not normal because they are scarce. But the scarcity is artificial. If you put a price on a commodity, more become available. Thousands of good organs go into graves and crematoriums everyday, because there is no incentive to do otherwise.

      Every argument you give could be equally applied to food, which is even more important than organs. But we get famines whenever we try to do the "moral" thing, and control food. Today we have an organ famine.

    15. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Whoosh. I'm not talking about the cost of the operation, I'm talking about the "free market" setting the prices of organs before you even get to the hospital.

      Poor people can be covered under Medicaid. What Medicaid wont do is get in a bidding war with a 71 year old former oil executive who can buy a donors heart for a cool $45 million and still have half his net worth remaining.

    16. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Relayman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many people don't check the donor box because they are appalled at the greedy doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies making good money off of their donated organs. Ever check the price of a transplant?

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    17. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money, in and of itself, does not give one the right to another's organs. It should give one the right to buy them and the family donating them should in fact be compensated for it.

      Being able to buy something has nothing to do with deserving anything, be it the right to live or die. Deserving should be earned by one's actions, whether or not the person is rich. I used to have issues with Bill Gates giving away all his money to charities, or at least a very large amount of it. So what if even after giving away 90% of it, he still has more than he needs. The fact is, the money has been used for good, so in that sense, he deserves something.

      What kind of twisted logic allows you to say, because I think people should be allowed to buy organs, that means I think people should be allowed to kill someone?
      If someone with enough money to buy an organ did in fact kill someone, a fat lot of good the organ would do while they rot in prison...

      Your next statement does not make any sense to me. If I believe its ethical to be able to pay to buy an organ, I believe its ethical that you can pay to stop me?
      First, leaving ethics out of it, we know why one would want to pay to buy an organ if they could, but why would you want to pay to stop the transaction? In one case, obviously, I don't want to die, in the other, you want me to die? Is it just me because I want to buy an organ or do you want all wealthy people to die?

      Taking your final argument apart, you argue that its egocentric of me to want to buy an organ. I'll buy that. :) Your next statement does not follow logically. If I want to buy a ferrari, that too would be egocentric and also does not meet your requirement of universalization in that not everyone can buy one, so, it must follow that buying ferrari's is unethical. You really do have it out for people that have money to actually, you know, use it?

      The only issue with the organ buying model I can think of and I would not be surprised if the current Supreme Court would move us in this direction, but its not the buying of organs that's the issue, its that people aren't compensated for selling their organs, when they die. When corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns, why are we restricting sale of organs? Because of the possibility of fraud? This would not be an issue if the market was not restricted as it is now. Seriously, many more organs would become available and how many more lives would be saved?

    18. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      As opposed to not getting the point.

      I'm not talking about the cost of the operation or even the prognosis. I'm talking about the "free market" setting the price of organs before you even get to the operating room. Instead of it being a $500,000 operation + a $30,000 kidney, it's now a $500,000 operation plus a $3,000,000 kidney.

    19. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by kesuki · · Score: 2

      there is a benefit to being a donor -- they wont ruin you financially if your organs are good and you are braindead. they will declare you dead. seriously who wants to loose their house or other assets to a hospital when you can instead let your kin get those assets.

    20. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Why not? That is the way we distribute food, clothing and housing. Why should organs be different?

      Why so heartless and/or short-sighted? Donor organs are a precious commodity and nothing like food, clothing, or housing, which are all competitive markets with many many many suppliers. As opposed to the "free market" adding a few zeros to the pricetag of a lung or a heart in a non-competitive market. No amount of insurance will over the cost of an organ if it's bidding against someone with the last name of Walton.

      You want to do something about the donor shortage, change opt-in donation to opt-out.

    21. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      And why not let people supply their own organs? Just imagine all those people needing transplants walking into hospitals with organs in bags full of ice, and their hands only slightly covered by blood.

      As for encouraging donations, why not have people sign up (or not) when they reach 18. They get to decide if they want to donate after their death or no. If they choose no, they are moved to the bottom of the list if they ever need an organ. After all, if their religion or other beliefs prevents them from donating, it must surely also prevent them from recieving.

    22. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by arose · · Score: 2

      Let's put it this way, if my organs aren't prioritized towards people who they'll help the most I'm opting out. In fact, I'd consider opting out of a system that only further increases costs and would never actually benefit me (that is, I'm dead one way and can't afford a transplant even the other).

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    23. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      That is supposing that, in a world where people currently volunteer to donate their organs, if people could charge for their organs they would only give them if they received such large sums. Or maybe it would turn out that some people would still donate their organs, whereas other potential donors would be willing to sell their organs (or those of their loved ones who have suffered a tragic accident) for the right price?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    24. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If people were paid for donating their organs, many poorer people would think that it's a good idea to "donate" theirs for some extra cash.

    25. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only one 'o' in "lose"

      Please stop spelling it "loose"

    26. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Another problem is motorcycle helmet laws. By preventing lethal head injuries on otherwise young healthy individuals, we are removing a great source of organs. Maybe anyone who has volunteered to be a donor should be allowed to ride without a helmet.

      I don't understand. Why was this modded funny?

      Ron Paul 2012!

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    27. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Meaning back to square 1: poor people and anyone without gold-plated health insurance is free to "die quickly" if they need an organ transplant. Because either they wont be able to afford it, or their insurance company will refuse to pay for it.

      As opposed to, you know, offering a flat reward for donating families or making organ donation opt-out (when you get a driver's license) as opposed to opt-in.

    28. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      funny???? maybe insightful

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    29. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by ganjadude · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I wouldnt check the box anyway, You hear all to often about doctors pulling the plug on you, even if you could make it because they can use your organs. No thank you

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    30. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Donor organs are a precious commodity

      Yet our society treats organs as a worthless commodity. We give them a value of $0. If diamonds were required by law to be free, how many people would mine them?

      and nothing like food, clothing, or housing, which are all competitive markets with many many many suppliers.

      This is backwards. Not everyone is a farmer or seamstress, but anyone can be an organ donor. The market can be very competitive, we just need to allow it to happen.

      the "free market" adding a few zeros to the pricetag of a lung or a heart

      A transplant already costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some of this cost is in shipping scarce organs around the country, and preserving them during shipment. If they were plentiful, they would be available quickly and locally, and the overall cost would probably go down, even if a few hundred or even a few thousand was paid to the family of the donor.

    31. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      no, but if a doctor is charging you 50 grand to take my kidney after I am dead, why shouldnt I be able to sell one while I am alive and pocket that 50 grand (or a portion of that?)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    32. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The problem is that human organs are not a normal commidity. Money doesn't and shouldn't give you the right to someone's organs. Money doesn't make you more deserving of the right to live any more than money makes you more deserving of death.

      - deserving, nondeserving, save the fairness bullshit.

      Either your body is your property or it is not. Are you for the government waging the war on drugs? Well, I am not, I am of an opinion that my own property starts with my own body, and I am free to do whatever I wish with it, regardless of you or anybody else's positions and objections.

      Money is also just property, and property exchange among willing participants is not something government should be allowed to meddle with. It's the right to your life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (property).

      Government shouldn't be able to deny any person right to life, liberty and property, and this means ability of the individual to do with as he or she pleases with his life, liberty and property also.

    33. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow. You're serious. I was almost certain your original post was a joke. Instead, it is your understanding of economics that is the joke. Please come back after you think long and hard about what poor people would be forced to become if you were allowed to sell organs. Then grow (please don't try to buy) a heart, if you don't see why this would be bad.

    34. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by geek · · Score: 2

      The difference is that many medical conditions leave people as poor and unable to "pay" the way you proclaim they should. Try fighting a life threatening disease for 10 years, see what it does to your bank account. Even rich people go broke from the medical industry.

      How about a child that will die without a transplant? Can the child pay? Maybe their parents can but it's unlikely as they probably have 2nd and 3rd mortgages on their home, assuming they can even afford a home. How about the kids in foster care or who are wards of the state? We should just let them die because they can't pay?

      I'm sorry but illness directly effects wealth and when you start deciding that peoples transplants can only go to the wealthy or to people that can pay you're screwing a large group of people who are guilty of nothing but being sick.\

      The transplant rules are what they are for a very good reason and were decided upon by much wiser people than us. People who actually work in this field and understand it. The life of Steve Jobs is no more valuable than the life of a sick child. I don't care what the eugenics crowd thinks. You'll steal organs from needy people over my dead body.

    35. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by catmistake · · Score: 1

      The problem is that human organs are not a normal commidity.

      Yes they are. You only think they are not normal because they are scarce.

      That is absurd. Did you even read my post? The reason is that I believe that people are not mere objects to be priced and traded.

      Thousands of good organs go into graves and crematoriums everyday, because there is no incentive to do otherwise.

      Then how is it we have any organs donated whatsoever? The incentive is there (and I realize this may confuse you) but it is not monetary; it is humanitarian, to treat people as ends themselves and not means to an end. Do you not see the value in humanitarian goals? The problem with your argument is that ultimately it arrives at the acceptability of slavery, that people are commodities to be priced and traded like any other. All commodities are regarded equally by rich and poor alike: clean water, food, shelter, and even precious metals are the same to everyone. Except that the rich never sell their organs, only the poor do it.

      So let me put it to you: How much for your kidney and part of your liver? Why is your kidney worth more than someone else's? If you hesitate for a second at the thought of giving up an organ at the market rate, then your argument is the same as that of the psychological egoist. If you won't sell your own organs then neither can you expect anyone else.

    36. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Not to mention the huge incentive for the hospital to let you die so they can harvest your organs and make multiple millions of dollars off of the transplant patients who receive your organs. I've read some horror stories about people who were not properly declared dead, who had their organs harvested and exhibited signs of extreme distress during the surgery.

    37. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      If anything, once a few rich guys die waiting in the queue, if I were a rich guy, I'd take that as a sign that my money can't buy my way in the line, so maybe it's time to start throwing a few million a year into medical research to produce artificial or vat grown organ replacements, lobby my legislators to lift bans on stem cell research, etc so just in case I, or someone I love is put in a similar position, it may no longer be a problem.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    38. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by catmistake · · Score: 1

      no, but if a doctor is charging you 50 grand to take my kidney after I am dead, why shouldnt I be able to sell one while I am alive and pocket that 50 grand (or a portion of that?)

      The doctor isn't charging me for your kidney! He charges for his expertise. If it was your kidney that was being priced, then why don't I just steal your kidney and keep the 50K for myself? Don't you see once you make organs a commodity, they are like any other, subject to the pressures of the market... and crime. People don't steal things that can't be readily turned around for profit, but all things that have a market value, sooner or later, are stolen. It's one thing to lose your wallet in a mugging... quite another to lose the business end of your renal system.

    39. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      OK, NOW you get around to suggesting an alternate solution to the current problem. Up until now you have merely been criticizing as flawed someone's suggestion as to how to fix the current system. Up until this post, you appeared to be criticizing his suggestion as opposed to the current system. Now you claim that you were criticizing his suggestion because you think that your idea is better (which it may be). The current system is broken. The correct way to discuss the system is to put forward your preferred fix and allow debate to follow from there.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    40. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Donor organs are a precious commodity and nothing like food...

      LOL!

      17,000 children die EVERY DAY for lack of food! About 18 people die every day for lack of a donated organ (in the US). Now very few people starve to death in America but, at the same time, very few people die from lack of organ transplants in 3rd world countries. They usually die from much more basic health needs such as lack of food or clean drinking water before they would ever get to the point of needing organ replacements.

    41. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by pdabbadabba · · Score: 2

      Good point. Better to let someone die for lack of a transplantable organ than be part of The System.

      Dumbest thing ever to reach +5 Insightful.

    42. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by catmistake · · Score: 1

      - deserving, nondeserving, save the fairness bullshit.

      Your argument is contradictory. If fairness is bullshit, then it matters not if we just take your organs and pay you what we want, if anything at all.

      You say it is choice, but I say that it is obviously discrimating against the poor because the rich never sell their organs. If you can buy someone else's organs, then someone else can buy yours. If organs have legitimate market value then there will be crime. I think we already have enough violent crime without giving even more incentive to the unscrupulous.

    43. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      People should be able to use money to buy things they want, encouraging more people to supply them. The problem here is that we have decided this shouldn't apply to organs, so the supply is severely restricted.

      I'm going to go with serious, and provide the unemotional free market economic response.

      Health care does not price naturally. Price elasticity of demand is arbitrarily close to zero for serious illnesses, and informedness is wildly variable. In addition, in the case of transplants, demand mobility is variable based on factors that are not strongly correlated to rational market value.

      Using free market theories on markets that do not naturally price is prone to wild variance from observed market behavior.

    44. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      take that to an end game scenario--placing value on organs.

      homeless bum gets hit by a car, comes into the hospital unconscious and bleeding badly. at what point is he deemed to no longer be WORTH saving, and is then auctioned off to the highest bidder who can pay his ambulance bill?

      its been documented already that many people do not check the organ box simply because they are afraid of this scenario---being chopped up before their meat is truly unoccupied. Throw in money, corruption, ever growing lower class and that would be much more likely to happen consistently.

    45. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Duncan+J+Murray · · Score: 1

      This comment is absolutely right. I can't believe the kind of comments that have been modded up in this thread. The irony is that _healthcare_ is a precious commodity, only available to a certain percentage of US citizens - the same argument applies to healthcare in general, as it does to organs.

    46. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Everyone else in the chain gets paid, why shouldnt the donor?

      --
      Good-bye
    47. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      If it takes $50,000 to remove a kidney, then its worth AT LEAST that much. Why should all the profit go to the doctor?

      --
      Good-bye
    48. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Why should one person have any entitlement to the organs of another person? There is no saving of life, merely postponement of death.

      It a personal choice. I'm certainly not ashamed to say that I wouldn't want my organs going into a Steve Jobs or a Dick Cheney, nor do I want anyone profiting from my body parts.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    49. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Your argument is contradictory. If fairness is bullshit, then it matters not if we just take your organs and pay you what we want, if anything at all.

      - fairness has nothing to do with rights and authorisations given to government. Fairness is a bullshit concept, it doesn't exist in the real world and whenever it is invoked, it means the exact opposite of what is fair.

      Whenever anybody says: the rich should pay their 'fair share', they never mention what 'fair' means. To them it really means MORE than the rest, that's all. The rich are already paying more than the rest, they pay more than the rest before they pay a single cent of their own taxes, because their money is used to create the products and services everybody uses.

      The Constitution is not about fairness, neither is the bill of rights. They are about freedoms and they specify that freedoms belong to individuals by default and that government has some authority under some circumstances to take away some of these freedoms, and ONLY THEN it says: fair trial.

      And fair trial has a real definition there - trial in front of a judge and jury guided by law, not by personal dispositions.

      What is fair? Is it fair that you want to deny a person to do whatever he wants with his own body? Is it fair that you want to deny a person the right to their own property, which STARTS with their own body?

      Under the guise of fairness what you are promoting is total control over individuals, starting with total control of their own primal property - their bodies.

    50. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by catmistake · · Score: 1

      If it takes $50,000 to remove a kidney, then its worth AT LEAST that much. Why should all the profit go to the doctor?

      If it takes $1000 to remove your wisdom teeth, are your teeth now worth that much? If it costs $75 to remove a wart, is the wart then worth $75? The value is in the care you receive, not in the material you are removing.

    51. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by catmistake · · Score: 1

      what you are promoting is total control over individuals, starting with total control of their own primal property - their bodies.

      False. That is precisely what I am arguing agaist, slavery. What I am promoting is the individual, rich or poor. How much for the left hemisphere of your brain? What you are failing to see is that your body, your arms and legs, and your organs are you.

    52. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      You're right that nobody is entitled to your organs. But this does not mean that there is no remaining ethical dimension to your choice. Nobody is entitled to your organs, but you ought still give them away in the absence of a very good reason not to. Unfortunately, none of the reasons you give are even iffy, let along very good.

      1) "There is no saving of life, merely postponement of death." -- Sure, but isn't some additional time on earth extremely valuable? I'm assuming this isn't your attitude when it comes to matters that impact the length of YOUR OWN life. Just, apparently, the lives of others.

      2) "I wouldn't want my organs going into a Steve Jobs or a Dick Cheney." -- The worst of the three. Obviously people like Cheney and Jobs make up a tiny fraction of the recipients of donated organs. If you can find some actual evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it.

      3) "...nor do I want anyone profiting from my body parts." --The best of the three, but still terrible. Obviously you're overlooking the fact that it is not just greed that causes hospitals and doctors to charge an insane amount of money to perform a transplant. Perhaps it also requires a lot of very specialized, expensive-to-develop skills? Perhaps also some equipment? Operating room space? Peoples' time? But let all that pass. What exactly is wrong with letting someone profit off your organs? Might that not even be a good thing in and of itself? Pretend that nobody benefits medically from your organs and JUST think about the enrichment of doctors. Isn't it better if some doctor somewhere can remodel his kitchen with the earnings from your organs than if you just let them rot with you in the ground? What other than pathological bitterness could blind you to this? And really we've just been beating around the bush because none of these suposed "costs" can compare to the incredible good that just one of your organs can do in extending the life of another human being by several years. And then remember just how many organs you have...

    53. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Let's put it this way, if my organs aren't prioritized towards people who they'll help the most I'm opting out.

      Thus further reducing the supply and limiting the number of people who can get a transplant.

      You're saying that if you think a rich guy can buy priority, you'll not donate. First, what if you're wrong? Nobody gets your heart, nobody is saved.

      Then what happens when there are two people waiting; a rich guy and a poor guy. Two people die today -- you and someone else. The other dead guy donated his heart, the rich guy gets it. You didn't donate your heart, the poor guy doesn't get one.

      Sounds like the best way to make a bad situation even worse, to me. And you'll be dead when it happens, so why do you care?

    54. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by gorzek · · Score: 1

      You hear "all too often" about that? Really? Where? Doctors are routinely letting people die in order to harvest their organs, huh? Let's see some proof of that--and not just one or two isolated cases, I want a verified pattern of patients being left to die specifically to harvest their organs.

      Pony up, bro.

    55. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Willfully obtuse much?

      17,000 children die EVERY DAY for lack of food!

      Which does what to change the fact that there are hundreds of millions of suppliers on the planet, or that only a sliver of a fraction of a percentage of the population is willing or able to be organ donors?

    56. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Because they're dead.

    57. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by gorzek · · Score: 0

      Slashdot sure is full of antisocial psychos these days.

    58. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Logical diarrhea. Removed wisdom teeth have no value after being removed. A properly removed liver is valuable in the extreme.

      --
      Good-bye
    59. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      If someone wanted my teeth, than yes, they are worth that much

      plain and simple, if you are taking an organ from my body, I (or my family) should be paid for that organ.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    60. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      this happens on the black market now, why not legalize it and keep the person getting their organ removed, and the person recieving the organ safe? same argument for abortions, it happened anyway so protect the person who is getting it

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    61. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      False. That is precisely what I am arguing agaist, slavery. What I am promoting is the individual, rich or poor. How much for the left hemisphere of your brain? What you are failing to see is that your body, your arms and legs, and your organs are you.

      - yes, it's me, and it is NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS what I do with every single part of myself. You want to tell me what I can and cannot do with own self, great, one more dictator on /.

    62. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Ownership doesnt sever at death, it transfers to your kin.

      --
      Good-bye
    63. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Why not? That is the way we distribute food, clothing and housing. Why should organs be different?

      Organs are a rival good, are generally a required component for sustaining life*, and the window to negotiate pricing is often small/non-existent.

      What you are missing, is that if there were no artificial restrictions on organs, they would be far more plentiful.

      There are already plenty of organs on Earth. Why, there's over 6 billion livers. And without artificial restrictions, there might be thousands of compatible matches (I don't know how exact cross-matching needs to be) just a murder away. And without murder, it's all about rich people needing an organ trolling morgues for parts and plenty of fresh corpse auctions, something to unlikely work well given the very small window that organ transplants are viable without specific care.

      Most people don't check the donor box, because there is no incentive to do so. If they were prepaid $100, many more would do so.

      Yep. On the black market, a single kidney might we worth thousands. But, for a mere $100, I'll potentially accept giving up the whole bundle--or not. Seriously, it's actually more insulting to most people to severely lowball an offer on something than to accept that it's a gift being given. After all, you can feel right (and have some legal ground for it) to retract a gift yet given; but, what sort of legal nightmare do you think is going to happen when potential transplant recipients go around suing families for going against the donor's wishes, arguing logically that they're breaking a contract.

      *Yea, you have multiple of some organs, but as a general point there's significant risk for giving any of those away. I'd imagine it also decreases life expectancy, given that it suddenly only takes one lung, one kidney, etc to fail. You will note, though, that people are regularly paid for blood more or less precisely because it's rather low risk, it auto regenerates, etc. So, I'd imagine the risk to the donor has a lot to do with it even more than the rival aspect of things, which is likely just to make it a rich man's game.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    64. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Willfully pointless much?

      Who cares how many suppliers of something there are if you cannot acquire it. You said organs are more precious than food. I also disagree. The vast majority of people that will die today before their time are waiting for food, not organ transplants.

      But if by precious you really meant rare and expensive then yes, organs available for transplant are more precious than life sustaining meals. It still doesn't change the fact that organ availability is magnitudes less important in the bigger picture of human suffering.

    65. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      So whats your "Food" argument for the fact that organs must be blood and immune typed or they are worthless and will be rejected?

      There are organs that go to waste every year because no one on the list matches the blood and immune typing. If you implant an organ that doesn't match these criteria you will kill the organ AND kill the recipient. Not to mention it being a very unpleasant, slow and painful death.

      The first thing a commodity organ market does is EXACTLY what happened in China, people paying poor people to give up organs and said poor people dieing of lack of medical care. Organs are not a commodity.

    66. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by vivian · · Score: 2

      If you want to get that liver transplant, the surgeon isn't going ot do it for free.
      The hospital isn't going to provide your bed for free.

      There is a huge shortage of donors.
      Direct selling of organs would lead to all sorts of abuses, and should never be allowed, but at the moment there are simply too few people who elect to be donors.
      If there was an annual amount paid to people with donor status on their licence, (which you could of course elect to drop from year to year) and that amount went up and down according to the needed supply (ie. if there are enough donors, the yearly amount paid to donors drops) then it would encourage a lot more people to be donors. In addition, if you DO have donor status and have been for a few years, then need an organ yourself, you should get either priority or at least your organ transplant costs reduced (which should also in turn reduce the cost of your medical insurance).

      Even if it worked out to costing a few thousand dollars on average for an organ under this scheme, it would still be a small fraction of the total transplant cost, which

      Of course all the same rules should still apply for donors as it does now - have to be really truly dead, given all attempts at resuscitation etc before your liver is given to someone else!

    67. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by arose · · Score: 2

      First, what if you're wrong? Nobody gets your heart, nobody is saved.

      I wouldn't be the one who's wrong then, as I don't claim that a financially motivated system would increase the pool. My heart doesn't matter if the pools bigger and you say it is. It's really simple, you want the system to be a financially regulated market, that's me voting by not selling my product to the highest bidder. If you are going to harvest my organs (which I don't have a problem with per se) then they go to the person with 20 years of life expectancy, first, because it's comparatively wasted if it goes to the one with 2 first.

      Then what happens when there are two people waiting; a rich guy and a poor guy. Two people die today -- you and someone else. The other dead guy donated his heart, the rich guy gets it. You didn't donate your heart, the poor guy doesn't get one.

      Than that's a consequence of people (i.e. me)making a personal choice in the system you advocate. What happens if now if the rich guy with a good prognosis gets my heart and the poor guy dies? Exactly what I'd want to happen. It's not about rich or poor, not to me.

      And you'll be dead when it happens, so why do you care?

      If you advocate universal organ donations I'll back you up, if you are going to do personal appeals then go get the people who are currently not opted in to sign up as you are wasting your breath the situation being as it currently is by appealing to what I should or shouldn't do in a hypothetical.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    68. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by vivian · · Score: 1

      A lot of people are afraid of becoming homeless bums and getting hit by a car?

      I'd say that under the current medical system in the US, he's no longer worth saving once it is established that he can't pay his bill.

      In other countries, with a well funded public medical system, he'd probably get a lot longer run.

    69. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Soporific · · Score: 1

      Yes, because medical malpractice lawsuits by surviving family is unheard of huh? Or is it a bigger conspiracy?

      ~S

    70. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Soporific · · Score: 1

      How much to buy your black heart?

      ~S

    71. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Relayman · · Score: 1

      An acceptable moral alternative to me is donating your whole body to science. Doctoral students still need to work with real bodies.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    72. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Ah! Well, on that much, I think we agree.

    73. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Relayman · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. There's some discussion about harvesting the organs before the donor is actually dead. You see, when you sign that donor card, your life immediately becomes less valuable to The System as your death becomes more valuable.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    74. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, and you're just what we need... one more egotistical hypocrit motivated only by self-interest — an unthinking, self-contradictory, fallacy spewing sociopath.

    75. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, there's always 4) Nobody is paying me to put that mark on my driver's license. There's a lot of money changing hands here. It's only fair that I, as provider of those organs, get a piece of the action.

    76. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by rthille · · Score: 1

      Yeah, stop playing all fast and lose with your spelling!

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  29. No idea? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't it interesting that Jobs, a California resident, was able to get a transplant in Tennessee? Bypassing all those sick little children and other in that state who were on the list before him, btw.

    The whole thing disgusted me almost as much as the fact that David Crosby was bumped up the list for his liver transplant to just go back to his ways again.

    And in the meantime, there these poor kids who just got dealt a bad deal going without because they're not rich and shameless.

    1. Re:No idea? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I do not know if Jobs got bumped up the list for money your whole point about others being on the list before him is inaccurate. You should learn a bit about the whole process before making dumb assumptions (Sadly I have had to learn about it due to a relative going through this whole process). First the list is not based off time its more fluid, its based off how sick a person is and can change hourly, you could walk in to a hospital tomorrow and be diagnosed with any infection that damages an organ and have a new organ a few months later, it all depends on if the a number of blood markers and type and who on the list best matches the donor organ when it becomes available, the person at the top would not necessarily be a good match but the person at #25 could be a much better match and would get that organ while the people above continue to wait.

      Also the whole comment about "in that state" is more BS, transplant hospitals will flat out tell you to get on other lists outside there area so long as you can be there within ~2 hours, hospitals will only travel so far to get an organ some farther then others so its to a persons advantage to get on other lists.

    2. Re:No idea? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is ridiculous.

      People in one state cannot get organs from people in another state?

      So all those poor children can't get organs that might be a perfect match just because they come from another state?

      We have a screwed up system. All patients that need an organ should be placed on a list that can be accessed by those families that have a family member donating their organs. Seriously, how many more organ donors would come out of the woodwork if they knew that on their death, their family might get some consolation? Today, other than moral altruism, their is no incentive, that is why the donor population is so small. Once we get over the hangup of that, I'd donate my organs if I knew that my family might get some compensation.

      Finally, if it was an open market, the prices would drop, more organs would be available and those poor children might actually get an organ donation, from another state...

    3. Re:No idea? Really? by Lord_Jeremy · · Score: 1

      He did something that wealthy people are more able to do than poor people: He had himself listed in two states. It's entirely legal to do this, but it requires a great deal more financial resources since you have to travel to the other state(s) frequently for medical exams and you have to prove that you can pay for the transplant out of pocket. There are no legal limits on where you can be put on the transplant list.

    4. Re:No idea? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, if it was an open market, the prices would drop, more organs would be available

      So you think that by combining the shortages of various regions, we can create a surplus? That's ridiculous! Do you honestly think that we have human livers rotting on hospital shelves because they can't sell them out of state? You Randroids never cease to amaze me with your moronic ramblings.

    5. Re:No idea? Really? by adisakp · · Score: 1

      Isn't it interesting that Jobs, a California resident, was able to get a transplant in Tennessee? Bypassing all those sick little children and other in that state who were on the list before him, btw.

      Organ transplants are managed regionally, not nationally, and some regions have a relatively greater supply of donors than needy recipients. Registering on a hospital's transplant list requires an expensive series of tests, and Medicare and most insurance only cover listing with one hospital. However, wealthy people like Jobs can pay to be listed at multiple hospitals in multiple regions, as well as afford to travel cross country on short notice if an organ becomes available. Steve Jobs was able to send medical samples to multiple locations and pay for the necessary tests and he even flew around the country to register at a number of major hospitals in person where required. The end result was he was registered with every major organ donor region in the US so he had a much higher than normal chance of receiving an organ.

      In other news, ex-VP Dick Cheney got preferential treatment to receive a heart despite the fact that he is 71 years old and has had five heart attacks.

  30. Re:not about murder; about improper financial bene by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Giving a liver to someone rich who has almost no chance of surviving while other younger healthier poorer people are dying because they didn't get the liver they need. This is the free market..

    Corrections in italics.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  31. slashdot is passe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slashdot is passe. The new slashdot is the dailymail.. look what is on their front page:

    'UFO' at the bottom of the Baltic Sea 'cuts off electrical equipment when divers get within 200m'

    Aliens & electrical equipment... Now that is "news for nerds"

    You think this is a joke.. but just recently I saw rumor about Jobs and his surgeon on slashdot. What is this, the national enquirer?

  32. Why Tennessee by clovis · · Score: 1

    I wondered why Tennessee. Is Tennessee the first place you would go to get extremely high-risk major surgery?

    This article explains the process a bit better and how it helps to have money. That is, he did beat the system by shopping around, but he did not have to bribe anyone to get to the top of the list.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/how-steve-jobs-got-sick-2010-04

    1. Re:Why Tennessee by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Actually Tennessee, and Memphis in particular, has some of the finest hospitals in the world. The UT system, St. Judes, etc.

      Nashville, too.

    2. Re:Why Tennessee by kybred · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link.

  33. Re:not about murder; about improper financial bene by muecksteiner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is of course fairly obvious the home was only purchased to game the transplant waiting list system in place in the U.S. That he was placed ahead on the list in that state by the doctor in question is pure conjecture, though.

    Not everyone can receive every organ that comes up for being transplanted. AFAIK, you need a fairly complex match of genetic compatibility for an organ to be actually useable for a given patient - and even in case of a "match", you need to keep taking fairly heavy immunosupressants during the rest of your life to keep your body from rejecting it. And since I would assume that there is a separate list for each (for lack of a better word - IANAMD) genetic category that donor organs come in: maybe SJ was indeed the front of the waiting list for the liver he ended up with? Without access to the relevant medical records that question is absolutely impossible to answer.

    What does surprise me is that he got a transplant at all in the first place. In Europe, advanced stage cancer patients usually are not eligible to receive any transplants whatsoever, due to the general scarcity of donor organs, and the low expected benefits of transplantation in such a patient. This seems to be different in the U.S., though, otherwise someone else would already have commented on that?

  34. Re:not about murder; about improper financial bene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That he was placed ahead on the list in that state by the doctor in question is pure conjecture, though.

    Yes, but you have to admit the use of a shell company looks mighty suspicious.

    I've sold houses before, and I've just sold them. No "shell companies" involved. Now, let's think... why might Jobs have wanted to use a shell company? Hmm... I can think of one big reason, can you?

  35. A lot of baiting without correlation by Stickerboy · · Score: 2

    While on the outside the situation has the appearance that there could have been impropriety, the appropriate thing of course is to look at the hard evidence.

    Giving a sweet deal on real estate to a friend and doctor for excellent medical care is not illegal. (While I haven't received a house, I get homemade baked goods all the time.) Giving a sweet deal on real estate to a friend as a kickback for being pushed up the transplant list is highly unethical. But there's an easy way to find out: have the state medical review board take a peek at the transplant waiting list records over the time period. If Steve Jobs mysteriously moves up the list for no good medical reason, or is listed in front of other patients with more pressing need or waiting time, then you have your smoking gun. Otherwise, if everything is appropriate with the transplant waiting list, then it sounds like the system worked as designed.

    --
    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.
  36. Re:not about murder; about improper financial bene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was a guy who hated uncontrolled publicity - consequentially; he didn't want his name on the papers. Therefore - he used a corporation to buy the house. Also, I think he was kinda' embarrassed about the whole thing... and then there is the matter of a sudden revelation's effect on stock prices... so, yeah, there's many reasons to keep things hush-hush that don't involve foul play.

    As to his medical eligibility for that liver, without seeing all the private records of the donors and all potential candidates for receiving the livers; I wouldn't be able to say if he should have gotten it or not... perhaps there was nobody else who could have used that particular one? We just don't know - and probably can't ever know, due to medical privacy laws.

  37. Here's the house in question by TigerTime · · Score: 1

    Here's the house in question: http://binged.it/OqU6VF

    It sold in 2005 for $1.325M
    And then in 2009 for $850K to LCHG
    And then for $850K in 2011 to James Eason.

    It's last appraisal was $1.28M

    $500K off the original price seems a little steep. The housing market didn't crash nearly that bad around here. Maybe a 20% drop but that'd be about it.

    1. Re:Here's the house in question by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      According to a quote from a state employee it was on the market for months without a single bid.

      You can go look at Trulia, etc and see that it's by far the most expensive house in the neighborhood, which in real estate depressions means a motivated seller is pretty well screwed. I could definitely see a 30-35% drop at the high end of the market, especially if the state was the one to *buy* the house (for likely more than they should have in the first place).

      So in the end people are talking about some big conspiracy, when reality is the price difference is from the height of a bubble to the bottom of a recession. So maybe they could have gotten $100k more if they kept it on the market another year. That's not a conspiracy, that's the real estate business.

  38. WYATT Bunker by jamesoutlaw · · Score: 1

    It's WYATT Bunker, not WEST. As a Shelby County Resident, I can safely say that it is best to ignore anything he has to say. He is a complete moron. This is just the latest in a long line of foolish things he has done since he has gotten on the government payroll.

  39. Re:not about murder; about improper financial bene by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    IWhat does surprise me is that he got a transplant at all in the first place. In Europe, advanced stage cancer patients usually are not eligible to receive any transplants whatsoever, due to the general scarcity of donor organs, and the low expected benefits of transplantation in such a patient. This seems to be different in the U.S., though, otherwise someone else would already have commented on that?

    This is 100% speculation by me, but as an American I think this is what happened.

    Most Americans have health insurance of some kind. Now you don't have to have it, Without digressing the upcoming Supreme Court decision on "Obamacare" is based on this very issue - that the US government cannot make you buy health insurance. Although somehow states are allowed to make you buy car insurance if you want to drive but anyway.... Rich people like Jobs probably don't have insurance. They can just pay with cash for whatever they need. So whereas Joe Blow with Acme Health Insurance might be told that since he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and had almost already lived longer than 99% of people with such diagnosis and that the odds were huge that it was going to come back soon and kill him when it did, he might not be a great candidate. However, liver transplants can now be done with partial livers and since the insurance company (non-existent) did not object and he could pay for 100% of it, there was no reason not to do it. US law probably prevents him from being discriminated against on the basis of his prior pancreatic cancer. There's no discrimination if the insurance company decides not to pay for it.

  40. Re:This just in... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    OK.

    girlintraining (1395911), you're a wambulance!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  41. Re:not about murder; about improper financial bene by Americano · · Score: 2

    It is of course fairly obvious the home was only purchased to game the transplant waiting list system in place in the U.S.

    Why would you conclude that? He doesn't have to own a residence in the area to be on their list. He could have just as easily stayed at a rental property, or anywhere else that would allow him to reside there temporarily - heck, if he had a friend in Memphis, he could have easily just stayed at their place if they were willing to put him up.

    To get on the list, he would have had to pay listing fees, and go through a battery of tests and interviews in each region he wanted to be on the list for - this is *certainly* where his money helped him ("average" people's insurance only pays for a single listing in their home region, and tests + travel + interviews + time off work is out of the reach of many regular folks), but there is no requirement that he have a residence in the region to get listed - just that he be able to travel to the transplant location within a certain time frame (this is where that private jet comes in handy, too).

  42. Re:not about murder; about improper financial bene by Americano · · Score: 1

    Not particularly, given his finances and the fact that he had a team of lawyers advising him about every deal he made. This could easily have been purchased this way for tax and liability reasons, with the expectation that it was a short-term purchase - buy the house, recover there, then sell it again as soon as you're done with it. When you have billions, sometimes it's worth a couple tens of thousands in lawyer's fees to set up a holding corporation to save some money and protect your assets.

  43. The naive explination by Ameryll · · Score: 2

    While I usually see the worst in people, Steve Jobs was extremely secretive about his health. Perhaps he got this shell company so that people wouldn't start to investigate why he was buying a house in Tennessee?

  44. Candy Bar by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Forget the $100, offer them a candy bar. They will sign up for organ donation, a 30% interest rate credit card with a big yearly fee, and give you their company username and password.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Candy Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre

      Ouch, I feel sorry for your mom.

  45. None of you would take the high road. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see a lot of comments here "Oh jobs is a bad man he used his money to buy his way to the front of the line blah blah blah". But lets face it, all of you are hypocrites and nothing else. Youre lying because you want to sound like you would take the high road and that youre a good person when you arent. If you were facing sure death and had the money to buy yourself some more time you would do it in a heartbeat. Its easy to make yourself sound like you wouldnt when youre not in that posistion, but if you were youd do anything you could when faced with death. Especially if you had the funds that jobs had youd pay off anyone you could.

    Is it right he did that and get special treatment over others purely based on his name and finances? Hell no. But guess what, he did it anyway because he could and youd do the same.

    1. Re:None of you would take the high road. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Project much? Even more interesting is it appears your a sociopath. Good luck with that

    2. Re:None of you would take the high road. by prezkennedy.org · · Score: 1

      No... at that point I might start considering my faith, legacy, future and whether or not there's a chance I'm going to hell, if it exists. Steve probably should have spent more time considering those instead of how to save his own miserable hide for just a few more months.

      He died an ass hole, and if there's a hell, he's probably in it. His money won't do him any good there either.

      --
      It started back in Team Fortress Classic
  46. When Jobs was still alive, by walter_f · · Score: 2

    I read another possible answer to the "Why Tennessee?" question.

    That article back then said, that, unlike most states in the U.S., Tennessee doesn't require a patient to be a resident of the state in order to be entered to the recipients' list.

    It was required that when a trasplant organ was available and person X was on top of the list, this person should be at the TN transplant centre in 24 24 hours or even much less (don't remember the exact period of time that was stated). Otherwise (when nor showing up in time) the patient would be re-scheduled back to the bottom of the list.

    In Jobs' case, this latter requirement was easily met by means of a nice private Gulfstream business jet, of course.

    Also referring to Jobs, a transplant surgeon said in an interview that in his area all patients with a medical history of cancer would be generally excluded from getting a donor liver at all, due to the fact that there weren't enough livers available for all the patients without any cancer history.

  47. I've got this guy's plan figured out... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    So Steve Jobs had a home in Memphis, Tennessee and a large fanbase who might be interested in visiting it and turning it into a shrine now that he's dead?

    Opening to the public soon, it's... Insanely Graceland.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  48. Acronym Is Even More Damning by organgtool · · Score: 1

    Liver Change House Gift, LLC

  49. Simple. Not even joking. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    You get on a plane and fly to the US and have the procedure done there for a huge expense.

    People in Canada do it all the time. If they don't want to wait, and have the money, many just go south of the border and pay for privileges.

    1. Re:Simple. Not even joking. by airdweller · · Score: 1

      Or you google before you post to not look like an idiot. They have private for-profit healthcare in Canada which, by the way, has been booming lately.

    2. Re:Simple. Not even joking. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      So you call me an idiot without a citation?

      I am unaware of any private for profit healthcare in Canada. I was unaware that the Canada Health Act has been amended to allow for it. If there is any it is likely very small in in some fringe service that is a gray area in the act likely. Anyway if YOU read the actual articles, what little private health case that is out there is paid for by the public system in most cases. About the only thing not covered are prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. None of which has anything to do with a liver transplant type of operation. (Though I think they should be covered, not sure why those are not really)

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/public_vs_private.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Private_sector
      http://timelymedical.ca/
      http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060501_125881_125881

      The third is to an actual private care referral service in Canada. If you look into their links you will see that they contract out to 22 hospitals in 8 US states...

      So in closing, you sir are an idiot. Of course I should have checked your history first as I am arguing with a Troll.

  50. Even worse by maroberts · · Score: 1

    He wasted a liver that would have tasted great with some fava beans and a nice Chianti....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  51. I'd call the Fire Dept. by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

    Or better yet yell "Hey, Dibs, get down off that roof! Stupid surgeon."

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  52. Re:not about murder; about improper financial bene by mindstormpt · · Score: 1

    It's not a cost issue. Many European countries won't give you a transplant because there is a shortage of organs. They will pay for whatever treatment you need, and they will (at least mine will) even fly you to Johns Hopkins if said treatments aren't available locally... They just won't waste a precious organ on someone who'll die anyway when it could be assigned to someone who will live to enjoy it.

    From watching House (I know, very reliable information), it seems a similar system is in place in the US: the nature of the condition leading to the transplant, and any related conditions (e.g. being an alcoholic, in case of a liver transplant) do influence your place on the waiting list. That makes sense, regardless of how much money you have.

  53. Redundant organs by phorm · · Score: 1

    I suppose it would depend on the organ etc.
    Sam needs a kidney transplant. Bob has two healthy kidneys. Can Sam - who is of sound mind - agree to sell one of his kidneys for $x (I'm not sure if he can or not).
    Obviously, Bob can't sell his heart or non-redundant organs. Somebody shouldn't be able to sell anothers' organs due to the possibility of black-market harvesting etc.

    I hear of people who volunteer [redundant organ x] to others. How about if a pricetag is involved for living transplants?

  54. Re:not about murder; about improper financial bene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US and Europe use similar selection criteria. But it's minutely easier to get an organ in the US due to the higher donation rate. Higher than most opt-out EU countries. Higher than all EU countries if you include living donors. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/02/daily-chart-11

    Sometimes a donated organ doesn't match anyone high on the list and they aren't just going to toss it. So every once in a while a lucky cancer victim is going to catch a break.

  55. Mod up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That says it. Mod parent up.
    some more words for the filter.

  56. That's what money is for. by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    What use is money if you can't spend it to survive a few months longer than some other poor sucker?

    Would you rather have communist rationed care and fascist death panels?

  57. More Scum than I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who says money can't buy you a first place in line for transplants.

  58. Put on your tinfoil hats by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Dr. James Eason wanted Steves house so he put a tiny bit of cancer in Steve during the transplant...

  59. I live 3 blocks away by X86Daddy · · Score: 1

    My house is three blocks away and I never knew until recently that he lived in this neighborhood. This is arguably the best neighborhood in Memphis (walkability, diversity, mix of biz/res is awesome), but in the 2007-2008 time period, prices dropped pretty hard, and continued downward a bit. 1.3 million to 850k is quite reasonable for what was happening then. The fact that he got back his purchase price, given what was going on, is the impressive bit. No one was getting a price increase during this timeframe. A lot of losses were happening instead.

    Thankfully, the area is having a nice resurgence, with previously closed/shaby businesses re-opening as really nice things, and our prices are going back up finally.