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.
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.
Not exactly. While it's true that HIPAA applies to everyone, the privacy rights of public figures are distinctly more limited than those of the average citizen.
It's not about HIPAA. This is not a case of some health care provider violating Jobs' privacy by revealing protected health information. This is a case where it was obvious to casual observers that something was going on -- and when that question was asked, Jobs and Apple denied that it was anything serious and/or that it would interfer with his role in the company. Then they reversed their public statements when he had to step down from some of his responsibilities again.
So ... leaving HIPAA out of it. It is not relevant to this particular case.
The case is about whether or not investors were deliberately mislead about a piece of key information that has great impact on this company.
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.
I agree that "all the gory details" need not be made public. However, that is not the point in this case. Jobs and Apple were publically denying that his illness was going to effect his ability to lead the company -- and that effected the stock price and the investments of many people. Did they knowingly mislead the public about this important issue for their company? That is the question here, not the minutia of his illness.
As for his importance to the health of the company. It has been shown time and again that the ability of Apple to succeed as a company is directly and very strongly related to Steve Jobs' active involvement. It is his genius that is the foundation of the company -- and that is the single biggest factor in its success. Each time he has decreased his role in the past, the company has floundered until he returns. That's why investors watch his ability to lead the company so closely.
I agree with the point that a decision needs to be made whether there was manipulation going on behind the scenes.
HOWEVER, from what I gathered from the news, it seems that even Steve didn't know the extent of his condition. Initially he reported that the weight loss was caused by a hormonal or chemical imbalance (this varied between reports) and that a simple change in diet would fix the problem.
Then, a few days later, he released a statement saying that his medical problem is more complex than even HE thought, and therefore that is why he is taking the leave of absence.
I can totally understand that, especially with his history of pancreatic ca. That unfortunately happens all the time - something seems minor and all the sudden is very involved. The timeline of the events is what needs to be looked at.
Whichever way you want to look at it, I just hope everything will be okay - he's had a rough go of it! I'm thankful he's taking care of himself, as it would be very easy to just concentrate on Apple and ignore his health.
There is little privacy for people like Mr. Jobs. I personally believe it is his business, not the shareholders', and however he sees fit to handle it should be respected (within ethical and moral guidelines, of course).
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.
Virgo, do you know what criteria needs to be met in order to define someone as a public figure? It seems like it would be difficult to define someone like this because the definition of 'public figure' seems so subjective to me. This is very interesting to me.
Virgo, do you know what criteria needs to be met in order to define someone as a public figure? It seems like it would be difficult to define someone like this because the definition of 'public figure' seems so subjective to me. This is very interesting to me.
You're right, that term is very nebulous, but I would consider a public figure to be someone that people who don't know them know who they are. It might just be in their town, like the mayor or a prominent business owner, or worldwide, like Barack Obama.
Or, for that matter, Chesley Schellenberger, even if it's only for 15 figurative minutes.
Not exactly. While it's true that HIPAA applies to everyone, the privacy rights of public figures are distinctly more limited than those of the average citizen.
I think I might have given a confusing reply. lol I misunderstood a bit and was referring to the information being released by medical professionals. We are of course to keep all patient information private and confidential.
I believe others have been responding to the media's responsibility here in reporting the information. In that case if the person is considered a public figure and they could prove it was reported without malice and the information is true I agree with you in that they would be covered.
Virgo_RN, BSN, RN
3,543 Posts
Not exactly. While it's true that HIPAA applies to everyone, the privacy rights of public figures are distinctly more limited than those of the average citizen.