Orac has some extended explanation. Key points:
- Steve Jobs' wealth and power let him jump the queue for organ transplants in a way that even I am uncomfortable with--and I am in favor of paying organ donors.
- The transplant is highly controversial with an unknown success rate
- There's a pretty good chance that in the next five years, we'll find out whether CEOs matter--at least to Apple.
I lost my father about 5 months ago to complications from a liver disease. We were informed of the extremely high improbability of finding a liver donor (and that some factors like other medical complications he had as well as his age - in his the 70's - that put him pretty far down on the list). It may well be that Steve Jobs had a high score on the donor list (in 50's, and for all I know he is otherwise in impeccable health aside from this issue)and I truly hope and pray this will be success for him. I don't wish him ill in any way. So in my head I can rationalize why Jobs would be higher than my dad. I was disappointed we could not locate a donor in time for my father, but accepted there are limits and there are rules to distribute fairly and it did not work out for us.
Having said all that I must say my gut feels punched as I'm not sure now my dad had a fair chance.
Scott A, I’m truly sorry to hear about losing your father. My condolences to you and your family.
Or whether the belief that Apple CEOs matter matters.
If people with money and connections can jump the queue now, just wait till the Organ Czar starts approving organs for Friends of POTUS and Friends of House Speaker.
This illustrates a gap in evidence based medicine. There is no study on these tumors because they are rare, but there is reason to believe the approach his doctors are using might work. Another example, should you give heparin to a patient with ulcerative colitis, Hodgkin's disease and a pulmonary embolism? That was not a hypothetical.
Or, maybe he got a transplant from a living donor?
"Steve Jobs' wealth and power let him jump the queue for organ transplants in a way that even I am uncomfortable with--and I am in favor of paying organ donors."
What's the point of being a billionaire if you can't get a liver when you need it? Seriously.
"There's a pretty good chance that in the next five years, we'll find out whether CEOs matter--at least to Apple."
This is a pretty stupid statement, no? If Jobs passes away within the next five years and Apple continues to do well afterwords, does that mean that Jobs didn't add much value as a CEO, or that he added a lot of value as a CEO by building a team that could carry on without him? A more nuanced analysis is required here.
I live in Memphis, where the transplant occured. Apparently he moved here to get on our significantly shorter transplant list.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/jun/21/sleuths-track-jobs-to-memphis/
Megan, those of us who have transplants don't need ham-fisted commentary on how sick it means we are. Some of us are, in fact, quite healthy, have been so for years, and expect to remain so for plenty of time.
Maybe I seem oversensitive, and my kidney transplant is surely less serious than a liver transplant, but we're not exactly the walking dead. Since this story started you've been eager to pronounce Steve deceased and a liar to boot. I personally keep my condition to myself in professional life and I guarantee you most transplantees do the same. Were I a public figure, I'd hope the media would take it easy on predicting my imminent demise.
Stats are great for medical science but they do not predict the outcome for an individual patient.
As anyone who's watched House regularly knows, anyone can get a liver transplant in a matter of hours if your doctor will simply lie to the transplant ethical review committee.
His "jumping the line" doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. He was arbitraging the wait times, which would seem to provide a net benefit.
It means that some Tennessee resident is waiting longer but some California resident is waiting shorter. Given that wait times are already longer in California this seems like a good trade. Its not clear that Californians are any less deserving of livers.
Now what is surprising is that the home of Jack Daniels has a higher donor to recipient ratio than California.
His "jumping the line" doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. He was arbitraging the wait times, which would seem to provide a net benefit.
It's surprising to me that those wait time discrepancies aren't close by ordinary people making the same move. After all, somebody who's going to die otherwise can probably figure out how to move to Tennessee for a few months.
Normal people probably don't consider that option very often. I'm surprised that the jurisdictional gaps are that wide, but simple public ignorance keeping them that way if they are is believable. It's a pretty narrow bit of information, after all.
Maybe they don't consider that to be a good trade-off.
The issue isn't that he's had a transplant. The issue is his cancer metastacized. In most cases if you have cancer you can't even get a transplant because the anti-rejection drugs tend to promote tumor growth.
You are being oversensitive.
He's up there with Ted Kennedy, Patrick Swayze and Farrah Fawcett on the next-celebrity-to-die betting pools.
Celebrity and CEO obsession have to stop
Yes, rich people have alternatives like moving around the country and hiring people to look out for them. Sorry, not really a surprise or a scandal
I do find this obsession with every move celebs make distrubing. I am one of those rare investors that actually read things like 10-Ks and prospectuses and they often say a "risk to the firm" is that, say, John Smith will leave the company. Hard to believe they are so important, in my experience. I realize that leadership is important, but with huge companies the creativity and acquisitions often come from people down the line.
I don't think Warren Buffet or Bill Gates have all the answers or even most of the answers. I certainly am not interested in what Bill Gates' father thinks about the economy, nor Donald Trump's daughter.
I wish Steve Jobs' well but his fight is entirely personal.
While reading 10-Ks and prospectuses is certainly a worthwhile activity, informational gems like so and so might leave the company is about as useful as being told that the sun might rise in the east and set in the west. Of course he might leave the company; he could step off the curb tomorrow, get hit by a bus, and "might" leave the planet. Point being that (a) the stock will move on that news, (b) those companies will be forever changed, and (c) this will provide a tangible data point in a running debate that's in serious need of some data.
Apple and Berkshire just so happen to be two particular interesting examples because they've been spectacularly successful under the leadership of exactly one CEO, well as has Southwest but airlines aren't nearly as sexy as tech or finance so Herb doesn't get the same press. Anyways even within that small group Apple has the distinction of having periods of wild success and wild periods of sucking a** that almost perfectly coincide with Jobs as CEO. While correlation doesn't imply causation, lack of evidence isn't evidence of lacking either.
I mean I wish him the best, I think the guy's living legend but his leaving Apple will be a very historically relevant point in the history of business.
Although I have to agree that it's hardly surprising that the rich and powerful live by a separate set of rules. It's the way of the world and any complaints should probably be addressed to Darwin.
Right, tsotha, it's completely about the cancer. That's why we have the phrase "liver transplant sick".
That's why we have the phrase "liver transplant sick".
As in his cancer was so serious he needed to have a liver transplant or he would die. I would consider that pretty sick. Apple was saying "all is well, he just has a hormone imbalance" If you need a liver transplant then hormone imbalance is quite the understatement. You're not the only person here who's had a transplant or has a loved one who had a transplant either.
With most companies I would agree. But Apple is different - Jobs has a pretty good feel for the types of things Apple's ardent fans will find appealing, and he's willing to take bet-the-company risks when it makes sense. When he's been at the helm, Apple has prospered. When he was off doing other things Apple floundered. If I were a shareholder I would want to know about anything that might affect his continued tenure as CEO.
If were somebody living in California and waiting for a liver transplant - I'd be grateful to Mr Jobs for using his money to shorten my list.