3 ms·

I find the very idea of forced disclosure of medical information downright scary, regardless of who the person is or how vital they are.

jonknee 18y ago
I agree, but no one is requiring him to be the CEO of a public company. He shouldn't have to post his blood tests on the web, but something like an annual checkup would be reasonable. Athletes do it before they get signed. Politicians do it before running. Pilots have to do it every year. Etc etc. Right now he could be dying (I don't think he is) and the board/investors are just counting on Steve to let them know. That's not cool especially after he showed them he wasn't willing to do that the first time (going on for months with natural treatments and waiting to the last possible time to disclose that he was very seriously ill).
- marvin 18y ago
  That's a pretty interesting idea - public disclosure of health seems very wrong (where every investor could read the doctor's annual report on Jobs's health), but something in the direction of what pilots do seems quite reasonable. The pilot is checked by a doctor, and the only information publicized is a "pass/fail". Any conditions remain between the pilot and the doctor, and in particular any conditions which are irrelevant to the task at hand. (If Jobs has erectile dysfunction, no one would ever know) Anyhow: The way Apple works today, there is little reason the SEC should be involved. Everybody knows that Jobs kept a life-threatening illness from investors until the last minute, and everybody knows that the company would be in deep shit if he had died. Hence, the risk of him keeping any current serious condition secret is known to investors and the share price reflects this. This is also why a (minor?) issue such as this one causes so much noise. Speculators are speculating.
  - timr 18y ago
    Also, the disease he had wouldn't kill him immediately. Even if he had disclosed earlier, the only purpose it would have served would have been to make the stock more volatile for a longer period of time. It's reasonable to argue that keeping the disease secret was a responsible decision.

jonknee 18y ago

I agree, but no one is requiring him to be the CEO of a public company. He shouldn't have to post his blood tests on the web, but something like an annual checkup would be reasonable. Athletes do it before they get signed. Politicians do it before running. Pilots have to do it every year. Etc etc. Right now he could be dying (I don't think he is) and the board/investors are just counting on Steve to let them know. That's not cool especially after he showed them he wasn't willing to do that the first time (going on for months with natural treatments and waiting to the last possible time to disclose that he was very seriously ill).

marvin 18y ago
That's a pretty interesting idea - public disclosure of health seems very wrong (where every investor could read the doctor's annual report on Jobs's health), but something in the direction of what pilots do seems quite reasonable. The pilot is checked by a doctor, and the only information publicized is a "pass/fail". Any conditions remain between the pilot and the doctor, and in particular any conditions which are irrelevant to the task at hand. (If Jobs has erectile dysfunction, no one would ever know) Anyhow: The way Apple works today, there is little reason the SEC should be involved. Everybody knows that Jobs kept a life-threatening illness from investors until the last minute, and everybody knows that the company would be in deep shit if he had died. Hence, the risk of him keeping any current serious condition secret is known to investors and the share price reflects this. This is also why a (minor?) issue such as this one causes so much noise. Speculators are speculating.
- timr 18y ago
  Also, the disease he had wouldn't kill him immediately. Even if he had disclosed earlier, the only purpose it would have served would have been to make the stock more volatile for a longer period of time. It's reasonable to argue that keeping the disease secret was a responsible decision.