Medical Health Disclosure vs. Steve Jobs' Privacy

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.'"

Well to be fair

Everyone else found out about JFK's medical problem the same time he did.

Re:LOL

Allergy to high-velocity injections of lead is actually quite common, but the condition is often diagnosed when it's already too late.

Sure, they have that right.

And surely the public/investors in view of a lack of a full disclosure have the right to sack/not elect politicians/CEO's who will not disclose potentially pertinent information about their ability to work in their role.

Re:Sure, they have that right.

And surely the public/investors in view of a lack of a full disclosure have the right to sack/not elect politicians/CEO's who will not disclose potentially pertinent information about their ability to work in their role.

There is a difference between CEOs and presidents. You can dump your stock any time you want and reinvest in other companies with other CEOs. But you can't call up your broker and say: "Sell all my Bush, buy Obama at 40", and expect to have a new president.

Re:Sure, they have that right.

But you can't call up your broker and say: "Sell all my Bush, buy Obama at 40", and expect to have a new president.

I believe that may depend upon the identity behind the pronoun "you" in your statement.

Re:Sure, they have that right.

I have mod points, but I don't see (+1, Sad Truth) among the options...

Re:Sure, they have that right.

"If you have nothing to hide, you wont mind if we talk a look around..." ;p

Re:Sure, they have that right.

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.

Re:Sure, they have that right.

Apple stock selling at inflated prices? Next you're going to suggest that their hardware is similarly over priced. That no one [psystar.com] could sell hardware capable of running Mac OSX for less. It's inconceivable! [slashdot.org]

Re:Sure, they have that right.

It's not Steve Jobs the individual that they're worried about losing, it's his proprietary reality distortion field.

It's a matter of PR, I guess

Well, I guess PR can occasionally be a two edged sword, and we're kinda seeing the back edge of it now.

Apple's PR machine is telling everyone that only Steve Jobs matters. X got finished only because The Great Man Steve Jobs yelled at the engineers to get it done already. (Apparently the lazy louts weren't getting anywhere without Him personally throwing tantrums;) Y was tested personally by The Great Man, and because He said where the buttons should go or how loud the volume should go. (Obviously, nobody else figured out usability around those parts;) Z happened only because The Great Man _didn't_ yell at the engineers for a change, and just scared them with his iciest stare. (No, seriously, apparently they weren't getting anywhere before that, and suddenly all was on track afterwards.) Etc.

The message the ouside world is fed, repeatedly, is that he's the big genius there and everything only happens because of him.

So, you know, I would worry too if (A) I'd actually believe that, and (B) had any Apple shares.

It's a bit, you know, like betting a bunch of money on the Sixtine Chapel back then, and then hearing half-way through that Michelangelo is terminally ill. Damn right you'd worry.

Or a bit as if the Catholic Church announced that God is fed up and everyone up there is moving to another universe as their next project. I'm sure the question would come, "well, without Him, what's the point of staying with this church any more?" ;)

Some Companies Are Their CEO

I wouldn't personally invest in a company that was that precariously positioned... I'm not entirely sure which it is, but surely a properly priced company isn't in such a precarious position where one individual getting hit by a bus would crush it the way that the NY Times is suggesting.

There are plenty of company's where the CEO's management warrants a premium P/E multiple. If Warren Buffet were to die tomorrow, Berkshire Hathaway's stock would suffer. If Bill Gates had died during the mid 90s, you can bet Microsoft's stock would have cratered. John Chambers (Cisco), Satoru Iwata (Nintendo), Laksmi Mittal (ArcelorMittal), Rupert Murdoch (News Corp.), these are just a few instances where the CEO is basically the franchise. If you want an example of what a bad CEO can do look at Carli Fiorina (HP), Angelo Mozilo (Countrywide), Jimmy Cayne (Bear Stearns), or Hector Ruiz (AMD).

A CEO (and management in general) is an asset to a company just like a manufacturing plant, cash, or inventory. However, unlike the aforementioned, the value of a company's management cannot be accurately reflected on a Balance Sheet. Instead a CEO's or management's (in)effectiveness if often reflected in the stock price, specifically the premium or discount to which the stock trades compared to its competitors.

For example, Apple's Forward P/E is currently 30 while Microsoft and Dell are trading at about 18 and 19 respectively. A good portion of that premium is due to the fact that Steve Balmer and Michael Dell are failing at leading their respective companies, while Steve Jobs has done a bang up job at spearheading Apple's product development.

Now, if you don't want to invest in companies that depend on a key man or group, that's you're prerogative. No risk, no reward. But there are people that do (and from the list above you can see it does pay off), and to them knowing Steve Job's health is an important concern.

I respectfully disagree

Steve Job's health records should be burned into the firmware of all new ipods.

Uh huh ...

'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.

Sure, sounds great. Someone should tell the insurance companies and medical transcription outfits about that, though. They have no problem spreading our health information all over the goddamn planet.

Short

Steve Jobs issued a very brief press release:

! iSick

Investors can still decide

Steve Jobs may or may not have cancer. He also may or may not get shot by a crazed Windows fanboy tomorrow. Make the investment in Apple with full knowledge that there is a risk, and estimate what the risk is. Or decide that the risk is too high and don't.

It's not up to Steve Jobs to make it easy for you!

Re:Investors can still decide

It's not up to Steve Jobs to make it easy for you!

I thought that was the whole point of buying a mac!

It's personal

I think that Steve Jobs shouldn't have to reveal or talk about anything personal to his company or investors. "He could die, and our stocks could fall," yeah and he could get hit by a car too; that's the reasoning I see them using. I'm sure you can find other random arguments against secrecy, but seriously, is nothing private anymore? Sure if he suddenly dies of cancer everyone will jump ship, but that's only because no one knows who else can invent things at Apple - they need to put other people on display.

Investors these days.

This is why they say that investing involves risk. There are lots of things you don't know and pretty much have to bet on.

Let's see these investors disclose all the details about their internal operations first.

Besides, if Apple can't survive without Steve Jobs, then neither he nor the board is doing their job. Oh, wait, long-term investment... nobody does that any more. Right, sorry, my bad.

Steve Jobs' plan for Apple

Given the amount of time Jobs has been back at Apple, and proof of his long term planning strategies (Think OSX86 since 2002 or so? someone remind me), shouldn't investors be looking at Apple for more such long term strategies already underway instead of simply basing their decision on Jobs alone?

I know Jobs is a victim of his own success, with everyone wanting to pry into his private life to see if the "second coming" of Apple will end with him or not. But surely anyone paying attention to what Apple has been doing can use that information to make smart investment decisions instead of basing it all on one man?

There are some very talented people at Apple from what I've seen (people I've met who work at corporate on iphone dev, macosx dev, , etc). I would be surprised if Jobs didnt put in place project leads and managers with vision to supplement or augment his own.

Remember this is not like when Jobs got kicked out because Apple needed to "grow up" and Jobs being ousted as the "not grown up enough" element in the company. He's proven himself very capable of getting very good people together to accomplish the projects and goals in mind.

Personally, I feel that if Jobs stepped down Apple could continue to do quite well. Several years ago, I wouldn't be so sure. I'd sure be interested in someone put some time into evaluating possible choices to take over Jobs job :)

First mobiles, then Wifi...

...next they'll be trying to tell us Reality Distortion Fields cause cancer!

Singling out Apple is inappropriate...

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."

Strong rebuttal? WTF?

Gizmodo's strong rebuttal says that everyone has the right to keep medical records confidential.

While this may be true, it does not naturally follow that exercising a right should have no negative consequences, such as a fall in the price of a security. A "right" in this sense pertains to the force of law, not a public relations disaster within the investment community.

I mean, Steve is free to keep his personal secrets, and I'm free not to buy stock in his company. His business is his business, but my business is my business too, and if I'm investing in his company, our businesses overlap. How could this possibly be redressed? What possible legal remedy could compel me to invest in companies without (rather stupidly) taking possibly unhealthy CEOs into account? Tax breaks?

People don't understand what a right is. It doesn't mean nothing bad is legally allowed to happen if you make a choice you are entitled to make. A right circumscribes the limits of legislation. And no law is forcing Steve Jobs to expose his medical history, nor does any corporation or individual have the power to legally force him to release this information. Apple cannot cite stock price losses as damages. They are also not required to present his health information to any outside entity, in accordance with his legal rights to protect that information. But I don't see where they are. He's reacting to negative articles and political developments both inside and outside his company, and his legal rights have nothing to do with these things.

He does have an informal "right" to be sick without people reacting to his secrecy about it. But this is not a right in a legal sense, because violating it is not a criminal act any more than just being a jerk.

Off the record ???

From TFA:

After that rather arresting opening, he went on to say that he would give me some details about his recent health problems, but only if I would agree to keep them off the record.

...

Suffice it to say that I didn't hear anything that contradicted the reporting that John Markoff and I did this week. While his health problems amounted to a good deal more than "a common bug," they weren't life-threatening and he doesn't have a recurrence of cancer

This particular slime-ball obviously uses some definition of "off the record" that I am unaware of.

Simon.

Re:So, is Apple just one man?

Any charismatic CEO/founder is in effect 'the company' as far as public perception goes.

Its part of the curse.