Should the illness of an "important person" be revealed?

Published

This article is about Steve Jobs, founder of Apple computer, who has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and who is being very private about his illness. The author believes that the shareholders have a right to know about his health. Jobs' insistence on secrecy has caused the company shares to drop in value.

His vagueness about his health, his dissembling, his constantly changing story line-it is simply not an appropriate way to act when you are the most important person at one of the most prominent companies in the country. If Mr. Jobs wants privacy, he should resign from Apple. If he did, of course, his health would no longer be anybody's business but his own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/business/16nocera.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Only if they want it. And their children are off limits in this regard (Jett Travolta, anyone?).

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Breast Cancer, Arterial, General Surgery.

It is my opinion that peoples health (no matter what their standing) is private unless they wish to share the information.

In this case I see no reason why the CEO of Apple should have to reveal and discuss something that is obviously causing him some distress.

I wonder that the journalist hasn't turned the thought round and wondered how he/she would feel if it was their health that was being bandied about.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Unfortunately, the stock price of Apple seems to depend on his health. As CEO, he also has responsibilities to his shareholders. Suppose the President of the United States began looking gaunt, withdrew from some important meetings, etc.?

It is definitely a dilemma, but Mr. Jobs does have other issues to deal with besides the privacy issues. If the stock price of Apple goes in the toilet, that stock is owned by lots and lots of mutual funds. Your 401K probably has some Apple stock, and perhaps your mom and dad or grandma are depending on some dividends from a mutual fund.

So, it's not like the reporters are just being nosy (well, they are) but a lot of people's incomes depend on Apple, directly or indirectly.

Oldiebutgoodie

Up Vote Up Vote ×

CNBC was discussing this all week. Some of the commentators seem to think that people like Jobs have a different level of responsiblity to the public and that he should fess up. Being a nurse I think he has the same right to privacy as everyone else.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I heard he lost a lot of weight as a result.

Since Apple didn't announce any new products this year, perhaps they can market Steve as the "thinnest, lightest CEO on the market".

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.

In fact, up until the public announcement of his taking time off, Jobs & Apple were making official statements to the public that his health was fine. People are upset because they seemingly mislead the public -- including investors who made financial decisions based on those misleading statements.

That kind of information can easily be used to manipulate stock prices and cheat people out of millions of dollars. Hiding or revealing it drives the price up or down, which allows "insiders" to time their buying and selling according -- and "outsiders" to be the big losers when the stock tanks. That's what the crime of "insider trading" is all about. People are asking whether Jobs and Apple are guilty of insider trading and/or something similar in this case. Since he/they were obviously lying about his health and his ability to continue to be active in leading Apple, it is a legitimate question. It is generally recognized that the company's chances of a successful future are much less without his active involvement.

A publically traded company has both a moral and legal obligation to keep its shareholders (owners) informed about who is going to be at the helm. When you voluntary take on that leadership role in a publically traded company, you take on certain responsibilities to treat your investors fairly. Did Jobs and Apple knowlingly mislead the company's investors and potential investors? That is the question.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Community Health, Med-Surg, Home Health.
In fact, up until the public announcement of his taking time off, Jobs & Apple were making official statements to the public that his health was fine. People are upset because they seemingly mislead the public -- including investors who made financial decisions based on those misleading statements.

That kind of information can easily be used to manipulate stock prices and cheat people out of millions of dollars. Hiding or revealing it drives the price up or down, which allows "insiders" to time their buying and selling according -- and "outsiders" to be the big losers when the stock tanks. That's what the crime of "insider trading" is all about. People are asking whether Jobs and Apple are guilty of insider trading and/or something similar in this case. Since he/they were obviously lying about his health and his ability to continue to be active in leading Apple, it is a legitimate question. It is generally recognized that the company's chances of a successful future are much less without his active involvement.

A publically traded company has both a moral and legal obligation to keep its shareholders (owners) informed about who is going to be at the helm. When you voluntary take on that leadership role in a publically traded company, you take on certain responsibilities to treat your investors fairly. Did Jobs and Apple knowlingly mislead the company's investors and potential investors? That is the question.

I have to agree with you there...when it comes to money...especially my money, I would like to know if there is an issue that is placing my money at risk. The issue I have is how was the information of his illness discovered? If it was by someone treating him, then, THAT is wrong...I would not want to be responsible for breaking HIPPA for these circumstances, because the price to be paid would be too deep. But, wanting to know about the status of my money? Sure, I'd want to know. I hope that this information was obtained ethically and properly!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in MSP, Informatics.

I think it should be a private thing. I also think the person with the illness has an obligation to be honest about if they are able to do their job or not. A simple turning over the helm due to health reasons is sufficiant. then people can make a decision if they still want to support that company. There arn't a lot of companies where one person and one person only make all the decisions.

of course, if they say something vaigue about their health, people will often jump to the worse possible conclusion. So sometimes it is better to be specific if that person is in the limelight.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in O.R., ED, M/S.

HANDS OFF! Steven Jobs has all the same rights as any other private citizen. HIPPA is just as applicable to him as you or I. I really don't care one way or another whether his health effects Apple stock or not. It seems no seems to care about Jobs himself as they are about their 401k. This is no different than a CEO resigning because he ran the company into the ground or a hedge manager commiting suicide to cover up his dealings. Everyone is in the same boat and Steven Jobs health should remain private unless he wants to reveal it.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

It should only be revealed by the person who is ill. It is their decision and should remain that way. They are entitled to the same medical confidentiality and HIPAA protections that we all are.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Cardiac Telemetry, ED.

As a former member of "The Media", I feel I should mention that there are already laws in place regarding this sort of thing. The question is whether Steve Jobs is a "public figure". If he is, then he does not have the same expectation of privacy as a private citizen. As a public figure, if he is one, he is fair game.

I would argue that Steve Jobs is a public figure.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion