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."

22 of 291 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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?

    3. 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.
    4. 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
    5. 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...

    6. 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.

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

      I think maybe you're a little naive.

    8. 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.

    9. 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?
    10. 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?
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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 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.

    3. 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
    4. Re:Artificial organ scarcity by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      --
      Good-bye
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.