5 ms·

Steve Jobs' liver transplant: Did he game the system?

12 points by mcknz 16y ago

ryandvm 16y ago
Gaming the system implies he did something most people wouldn't do. I don't think that's the case. Does being rich give you a better shot at a new liver? Yes. Would most people take advantage of their wealth to lengthen their life? Yes. I would like to feel high and mighty about this, but I can't. If I had Jobs' money, you can be sure I'd be getting myself on as many lists as I could too.
- beoba 16y ago
  The two are not mutually exclusive.
- Kylekramer 16y ago
  I disagree that gaming the system implies most people wouldn't do it. It is just manipulating the rules in place in a way to give yourself an advantage. Basically, following the letter but breaking the spirit of the law. Tons of people do that everyday. So yes, Steve gamed the system. But I don't begrudge him for it. Gaming systems for personal gain is the hacker way, honestly.
  - dansingerman 16y ago
    "Gaming systems for personal gain is the hacker way, honestly" This rings very true for me. And if 'personal gain' = 'extending life span' who the hell can criticise that?
  - zalew 16y ago
    I wonder how these comments would look like if instead of Jobs it was about some Goldman Sachs exec. (downvotes for this comment, here they come)
    - jokermatt999 16y ago
      <meta> Please don't complain about possibly being downvoted. It ruins otherwise good posts. You had an insightful post that people would have modded up anyway. </meta> Indeed, it's a lot easier to justify this as "fair" when it's someone you like. I admit that I'd have a harder time defending the GS exec, but I don't see how what they did is against the rules. It may not be "fair" because poorer people don't have that opportunity, but it's still legal. The focus should be less on fair/unfair and more on fixing the current broken system in which many people die.
- JacobAldridge 16y ago
  Precisely what I came here to say. There's a lot that can be said about the news this week, but accusing him of gaming the system (rather than just using it to his advantage in what was possibly a life-threatening situation) is not one of them.
- zachallaun 16y ago
  I agree with this, but would take it a step further: Jobs' influence on many people has been profound. I'd argue that his staying alive has increased the quality, if not longevity, of many lives. I do not mean this to say that his only contribution has been great product direction, either. He drew a new picture of acceptable and standard corporate culture, an achievement which has likely changed the way that thousands of businesses operate and contribute to society.
ary 16y ago
Short answer: Yes. And so would everyone else with access to his kind of resources. Should he have done the fair thing and died?
curiousfiddler 16y ago
Dude, he's unwell. Seriously, people "can" fall sick and when they do, they need good wishes! PHEW!!!
timtim 16y ago
It just shows how much that health (insurance) system is in need of repair.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Health insurance isn't the issue here. There's an absolute scarcity of donor organs, which necessarily means that some people who need a donor organ won't get one. Changing how we pay for medical treatment isn't going to solve that problem, unless some of that money somehow goes to organ donors, which is an idea that makes everyone really uncomfortable.
  - ac132 16y ago
    I vote in favor of selling your organs upon death. It's not a bad way to pay for the funeral. :-)
dansingerman 16y ago
I fully support anyone who puts the time, effort and resources into gaming any system to their own advantage. If people are unhappy with the outcome, blame the system, not the individual. If he bribed someone that would be a very different matter. But he didn't, and there is no suggestion that he did.
- cpeterso 16y ago
  Don't hate the player; hate the game.
imkevingao 16y ago
I don't like systems and I dislike rules. I would definitely bend rules for people like Steve Jobs. This guy is an amazing, one of the most influential and most competent CEO in Silicon Valley for almost two and half decades. When the king of Silicon Valley needs a new liver, he should get one. No questions asked.
Rhymenocerus 16y ago
there has to be some "mac4life"er out there willing to sacrifice his liver for "the greater good", and save the master-of-all-things
xcvd 16y ago
This article has been taken down? Even if Apple has muscled in, Slate must not have any strength in their convictions/gossiping.
smoody 16y ago
To all those people thinking that gaming the system this way is fine and they'd do it: Let's not say it's you with a cancerous liver, let's say it's your mom, child, or sibling. and they're near death. And let's not say that they'd get a liver by gaming the system, but let's say instead that the doctor just provided you with the news that your loved one will not be getting a liver in time because someone wealthy cut in line and that your mom/child/brother will not live long enough to get a transplant. NOW how do you feel about gaming the system?
- aikinai 16y ago
  From the perspective of one liver or one jurisdiction, he didn't "cut in line;" he was just one more person on the waitlist and they followed their standard procedures for deciding who gets that one liver in that one jurisdiction. If he happened to live in Tennessee, he would have gotten that liver even if it wasn't wealthy. He just increased his chances across the board by putting himself on waitlists everywhere. Of course, that is still "gaming the system," and I can see why it would bother people, but there's no victim.

12 points by mcknz 16y ago

Gaming the system implies he did something most people wouldn't do. I don't think that's the case. Does being rich give you a better shot at a new liver? Yes. Would most people take advantage of their wealth to lengthen their life? Yes. I would like to feel high and mighty about this, but I can't. If I had Jobs' money, you can be sure I'd be getting myself on as many lists as I could too.

beoba 16y ago
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Kylekramer 16y ago
I disagree that gaming the system implies most people wouldn't do it. It is just manipulating the rules in place in a way to give yourself an advantage. Basically, following the letter but breaking the spirit of the law. Tons of people do that everyday. So yes, Steve gamed the system. But I don't begrudge him for it. Gaming systems for personal gain is the hacker way, honestly.
- dansingerman 16y ago
  "Gaming systems for personal gain is the hacker way, honestly" This rings very true for me. And if 'personal gain' = 'extending life span' who the hell can criticise that?
- zalew 16y ago
  I wonder how these comments would look like if instead of Jobs it was about some Goldman Sachs exec. (downvotes for this comment, here they come)
  - jokermatt999 16y ago
    <meta> Please don't complain about possibly being downvoted. It ruins otherwise good posts. You had an insightful post that people would have modded up anyway. </meta> Indeed, it's a lot easier to justify this as "fair" when it's someone you like. I admit that I'd have a harder time defending the GS exec, but I don't see how what they did is against the rules. It may not be "fair" because poorer people don't have that opportunity, but it's still legal. The focus should be less on fair/unfair and more on fixing the current broken system in which many people die.
JacobAldridge 16y ago
Precisely what I came here to say. There's a lot that can be said about the news this week, but accusing him of gaming the system (rather than just using it to his advantage in what was possibly a life-threatening situation) is not one of them.
zachallaun 16y ago
I agree with this, but would take it a step further: Jobs' influence on many people has been profound. I'd argue that his staying alive has increased the quality, if not longevity, of many lives. I do not mean this to say that his only contribution has been great product direction, either. He drew a new picture of acceptable and standard corporate culture, an achievement which has likely changed the way that thousands of businesses operate and contribute to society.

ary 16y ago

Short answer: Yes. And so would everyone else with access to his kind of resources. Should he have done the fair thing and died?

curiousfiddler 16y ago

Dude, he's unwell. Seriously, people "can" fall sick and when they do, they need good wishes! PHEW!!!

timtim 16y ago

It just shows how much that health (insurance) system is in need of repair.

philwelch 16y ago
Health insurance isn't the issue here. There's an absolute scarcity of donor organs, which necessarily means that some people who need a donor organ won't get one. Changing how we pay for medical treatment isn't going to solve that problem, unless some of that money somehow goes to organ donors, which is an idea that makes everyone really uncomfortable.
- ac132 16y ago
  I vote in favor of selling your organs upon death. It's not a bad way to pay for the funeral. :-)

dansingerman 16y ago

I fully support anyone who puts the time, effort and resources into gaming any system to their own advantage. If people are unhappy with the outcome, blame the system, not the individual. If he bribed someone that would be a very different matter. But he didn't, and there is no suggestion that he did.

cpeterso 16y ago
Don't hate the player; hate the game.

imkevingao 16y ago

I don't like systems and I dislike rules. I would definitely bend rules for people like Steve Jobs. This guy is an amazing, one of the most influential and most competent CEO in Silicon Valley for almost two and half decades. When the king of Silicon Valley needs a new liver, he should get one. No questions asked.

Rhymenocerus 16y ago

there has to be some "mac4life"er out there willing to sacrifice his liver for "the greater good", and save the master-of-all-things

xcvd 16y ago

This article has been taken down? Even if Apple has muscled in, Slate must not have any strength in their convictions/gossiping.

smoody 16y ago

To all those people thinking that gaming the system this way is fine and they'd do it: Let's not say it's you with a cancerous liver, let's say it's your mom, child, or sibling. and they're near death. And let's not say that they'd get a liver by gaming the system, but let's say instead that the doctor just provided you with the news that your loved one will not be getting a liver in time because someone wealthy cut in line and that your mom/child/brother will not live long enough to get a transplant. NOW how do you feel about gaming the system?

aikinai 16y ago
From the perspective of one liver or one jurisdiction, he didn't "cut in line;" he was just one more person on the waitlist and they followed their standard procedures for deciding who gets that one liver in that one jurisdiction. If he happened to live in Tennessee, he would have gotten that liver even if it wasn't wealthy. He just increased his chances across the board by putting himself on waitlists everywhere. Of course, that is still "gaming the system," and I can see why it would bother people, but there's no victim.