Medical Health Disclosure vs. Steve Jobs' Privacy 362
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is saying that Steve Jobs doesn't have cancer, but that he needs to disclose all the information about his medical condition so investors can decide. Gizmodo's strong rebuttal says that everyone has the right to keep medical records confidential. They argue that, if prominent US presidents legally kept their grave illnesses secret — even while the security of the country was at stake — a simple CEO should be able to do the same: 'Steve Jobs has the right to keep his medical records private for as long as he wants. Like FDR. Like JFK. Like any single person in this country and the world. It's our right, as humans, to do so.'"
Re:Precedents (Score:3, Informative)
If Dubya can fail to disclose his obvious developmental disability all these years then certainly everyone else is entitled to privacy, too.
He has a minor speech impediment. BFD.
It's crap like this that makes life a living hell for people with speech impediments. It's one of the last few forms of discrimination allowed by society.
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:5, Informative)
I think maybe he would suggest that people are free to not vote for a candidate based on their refusal to share their medical records.
Singling out Apple is inappropriate... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure I know what is or isn't owed to the public in the way of medical disclosure, but it's inappropriate to single out Apple and Steve Jobs as if they were an egregious case. Holding back adverse medical information about CEOs, or "spinning" it to minimize it, is par for the course.
One example which comes to mind is the diagnosis of Dr. An Wang with esophageal cancer. Dr. Wang was at least as important to Wang Laboratories, Inc. as Steve Jobs is to Apple, and esophageal cancer is a very dangerous form of cancer.
But when Dr. Wang failed to make a scheduled appearance to address a meeting of the Boston Computer Society, a company representative explained that he was suffering from "a sore throat."
A quick database check of The Boston Globe indicates that his true condition was not disclosed until March 9, 1990, sixteen days before his death on March 25th, even though he had had surgery for his cancer eight months earlier. Indeed, it can be said that it was not even disclosed on March 9th, as a Wang spokesperson was quoted as saying "The diagnosis of his present condition is not available at this time."
Re:It's the Business section. (Score:2, Informative)
The NYT are not socialists. You are Bircher-level insane, and you do not know what socialism is. They are neoliberals like both major parties and every other major news outlet in America.
They employ flat-earther free-market fundamentalist Thomas Friedman, ffs.
absolutely material - Jobs must disclose (Score:4, Informative)
whereas in the US, you don't have a specific regulation covering this situation, so Steve can get away without coming clean. So in the absence of a specific regulation, most of the chatter is trying to turn this into a moral issue - which it isn't. There's something that could materially affect the share price - and being so should be disclosed.
(of course my above two paragraphs assume the presence of Steve Jobs as being material to Apple. I begrudingly admit that may be so. He is a grade A asshole, but he has managed to produce outrageous margins from flogging shiny trinkets.)
Re:Well to be fair (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well to be fair (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently, though, JFK tried to hide the fact that he was wheelchair-bound during the campaign the best that he could.
Aren't you thinking of FDR?
We already went through this... (Score:2, Informative)
> To refuse you would have to be asked. I don't think any one needs to ask Obama for his records but McCain (or even Paul who I would rather see as President), most certainly. But if Obama were to be asked and then refuse, well then that would smell to me.
I think they already were. Remember when there was that fuss over them? I don't remember about Obama (IIRC, he's quite healthy), but McCain refused to release his health records for quite a while.
Then finally he did: he got a bunch of friendly press and gave them an hour or two to review all 4,000 or so pages of medical records he has. After that, there were lots of articles about the time he had a bit of melanoma removed from his face, but the whole issue vanished.
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:1, Informative)
Overpriced products does not mean overpriced stock, if people are buying the products like crazy.
Re:Sure, they have that right. (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure how you equate those two scenarios.
Concerns over Jobs' health have caused a significant and materially negative impact on AAPL. Apple IS Steve Jobs. Every aspect of the company is reflective of his vision. If some illness were to take him out of the company prematurely, the company would suffer adverse effects. As a result, anyone who went out and bought 1000 shares of AAPL is going to be very interested in the health of its visionary/CEO.
Look, Jobs has every right to say "My health, my business," but freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequence. If Jobs wishes to maintain the privacy of his health status, he will do so at the cost of shareholder value, and by extension, his own net worth.