Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 9th Sep 2009 21:36 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
After back and forth rumors about the health of Apple's revered Steve Jobs way back in last year and the beginning of 2009, it turned out that he really did have some health problems: complications with his liver requiring a transplant. It was supposed that he'd return to Apple by the end of June, and now he's finally made his first public appearance since he first took his medical leave of absence earlier this year.
Thread beginning with comment 383256
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Comment by haus
by Soulbender on Thu 10th Sep 2009 16:32
in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by haus"
Member since:2005-08-18
He didn't break any laws or pay anyone off which is what Tomcat seemed to be implying.
I think he was implying that it was unethical but that's the health care system you have over there so what can you expect?
That's just unsubstantiated hyperbole.
It's a bit far fetched, yes.
RE[9]: Comment by haus
by google_ninja on Thu 10th Sep 2009 19:56
in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by haus"
Member since:2006-02-05
This is a problem with the US healthcare system. Don't fault Jobs for trying to save his own life. He didn't break any laws or pay anyone off which is what Tomcat seemed to be implying.
You acknowledge a flaw in the system, but you don't think exploiting the flaw is wrong? There are many, many things that are ethically wrong but technically ok, and a large percent of them seem to be available only to those with money, in this case he bought himself 48x the chance to live that most other people in his situation would get. I am not condemning him or anything, I don't know what I would have done if I were in his position, but I do know what the right thing to do would be.
That's just unsubstantiated hyperbole. You don't know if a single person died because of Jobs transplant and accusing Jobs of causing someone's death is a pretty low blow, especially without a shred of evidence
If someone hasn't died, they are close to it. The only way that isn't the case is if nobody desperately needs a liver in Tenessee, which I think is highly unlikely.
Member since:2005-07-07
You acknowledge a flaw in the system, but you don't think exploiting the flaw is wrong?
Unequal access is a problem with the US healthcare system but I don't believe that trying to save your own life by giving yourself the best chances at survival is wrong in any way. It's a natural instinct.
I am not condemning him or anything, I don't know what I would have done if I were in his position
I know what you would have done...exactly the same thing Jobs did. If you're on death's door and someone tells you that there's a liver across the country that could save your life you don't think about it for a second. You hop on a plane and get the transplant. There's really nothing noble about valuing your life less than everyone else's. It's a bogus argument to say that Jobs was unethical for not dying for someone else when it is entirely possible that no one died for him.
I do know what the right thing to do would be
Really? It doesn't seem like it. I don't think you have any evidence to back up the idea that Jobs didn't do the right thing.
If someone hasn't died, they are close to it. The only way that isn't the case is if nobody desperately needs a liver in Tenessee, which I think is highly unlikely.
Is it just tech forums or does everyone think they're an expert on totally unrelated subjects? The truth is you know jack squat about the situation but it seems to make people feel better to criticize celebrities. It's just particularly vile to me when people criticize life and death decisions with absolutely no idea what the circumstances were.
Member since:2006-01-06
This is a problem with the US healthcare system. Don't fault Jobs for trying to save his own life. He didn't break any laws or pay anyone off which is what Tomcat seemed to be implying.
Gaming the system to move ahead of other rightful liver transplant candidates obviously isn't illegal -- but it's unethical. Jobs must have known that he would be getting a liver faster than people who didn't have as much money. I see no reason to admire him for that.
RE[10]: Comment by haus
by sbergman27 on Fri 11th Sep 2009 04:31
in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by haus"
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2005-07-07
Gaming the system to move ahead of other rightful liver transplant candidates obviously isn't illegal -- but it's unethical. Jobs must have known that he would be getting a liver faster than people who didn't have as much money. I see no reason to admire him for that.
I don't think you've shown that it is unethical at all. What is the alternative? Would you have Jobs die instead? Who are you to determine who lives and who dies? This is a much more complex issue than you make it out to be. If Jobs was the sickest person and needed the liver sooner than everyone else on the list wouldn't it be unethical NOT to give him the liver? Should everyone choose to suffer like the poorest members of society because it would be unethical to receive treatment that isn't available to everyone? It's not the individual's fault. It's the fault of the system. You can't blame people for using all of the resources they have to get the treatment they need. It's extremely cynical.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-07
This is a problem with the US healthcare system. Don't fault Jobs for trying to save his own life. He didn't break any laws or pay anyone off which is what Tomcat seemed to be implying.
That's just unsubstantiated hyperbole. You don't know if a single person died because of Jobs transplant and accusing Jobs of causing someone's death is a pretty low blow, especially without a shred of evidence.