Steve Jobs Dead

[Broomstick]

Also, since I'm already on the road to perdition, maybe Steve is a good example of the potential harm of 'alternative medicine':

A few years ago I had a friend who had cancer and had exhausted treatments short of a Whipple. He chose not to have the surgery, knowing it would mean his certain death, and made no attempt to seek any other treatment than hospice, alternative or not.

People do have a right to refuse medical treatment. If they are fully informed of the consequences it is their choice, even if their choice will end in death. The only time I'd get pissy about it is if it was an adult deciding for a child. Jobs was an adult, educated, and intelligent. He wasn't pushing his choice as the right one, he wasn't promoting it to other people (unlike some celebrities we could name). If he didn't want the surgery, or wanted to postpone it, that's his right.

Eventually, he did opt for the surgery. One only had to look at him to realize that there were some major consequences of that surgery.

The problem with that is why did he need the liver?

I don't know. Want to know something, though? Steve Jobs' medical records are none of our business. He has just as much right to privacy as any other citizen. Being a rich CEO doesn't change that.

Did chemo ruin it and if so if he started with proper care at the onset he might not have needed extra treatment and someone would have a nice new liver. If he was stage 4 why is he getting a new liver is that a normal practice?

I'm not aware of chemo routinely destroying livers, though I suppose it could be a complication. Much more likely is that the cancer spread to his liver, so removal of the liver was the only way to remove the cancer, which would of course necessitate a transplant in order to survive.

Whether or not a cancer patient gets a new organ depends on many factors, including how likely it is to get all the cancer with the organ removal and/or whether or not a prior cancer is in remission. And probably other factors I, as a layperson, am not aware of. It's not so much a matter of "is it routine?" as "in this particular case is there reason to believe the potential benefit outweighs the known risks?"

Other alternatives include a long-standing hepatitis infection (which can be asymptomatic for years before showing up as liver damage) and drug use. I am not aware of Jobs suffering from either of those conditions, but then, he was always an extremely private individual. Speculations that he had HIV I assume are rooted in his extreme weight loss, but really, Jobs could have easily afforded modern AIDS treatments that largely prevent that. Whether he had HIV or not is, again, nobody's business but his and his family.

[PainRack]

While I WOULD agree that alternative medicine kills bit... I think the article is a bit too lax on the actual risks and complications of the surgery itself.

Now, of course, since Steve Jobs is STEVE jobs, this isn't going to be a problem for him. But it is a major operation with huge risks and its sorta condescending to just claim" Oh, you're such a fool for not going for it."

More importantly, Steve Jobs did go for the operation and his survival rate is well within the documentated timeframe.You might say he got lucky, twice!, but looking at this from a layman point of view, its hard to say that Steve Jobs was harmed by alternative medicine.

The problem with that is why did he need the liver? Did chemo ruin it and if so if he started with proper care at the onset he might not have needed extra treatment and someone would have a nice new liver. If he was stage 4 why is he getting a new liver is that a normal practice?

Errr..... how did you get there?

The news article all suggest that he got the liver transplant because his disease was suitable for being treated by a liver transplant.

There isn't enough real data out there to suggest that its the optimal course, at least, from what I can get from a casual google search.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6993/

http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/tech/job ... 3527.story

And again, statistics. Not everyone who goes for a Whipple is cured. You can't look back and say oooh, he screwed up. He might have been just one of those unlucky ones who did have a relapse after a successful surgery.


I DO note with interest that a google search shows that this tumour might cause hypoglycaemia, which is routinely associated with irritation and excessive irritation to stimuli on top of other things.

[Gandalf]

These hyperbolic antics aren't only coming from the media. There are flowers being left outside Apple stores, iPads with candles left outside, memorials on the streets. This mindless worshipping of the King of Vapid Consumerism is appalling to me and a symptom of something deeper than one man's death. This isn't just the media playing things up on a slow news day.

People are leaving several hundred dollar electronic devices outside stores?

[Uraniun235]

[Enigma]

Well, it looks like the WBC will be protesting the funeral.

[Magis]

There is this thing called Corporate Social Responsibility. Also, in 1997 Apple was in really bad shape. In 1998 the iMac hit the shelves and sold about 1 million units in about six months or so. Jobs quickly restored profitability, but the charity programs were never restored.

As CEO, he had a legal obligation to look out for the financial interest of his shareholders. If the shareholders wanted corporate philanthropy activity, they could have demanded that of their management. They didn't. What is hard to understand about this?

Do you believe in God? Because that is the same type of logic. Burden of proof my friend, burden of proof.

It is you that is making the unjustifiable assumption here. You assume that because he didn't publicly announce charitable giving, that he therefore didn't give anything to charity. I simply stated that it cannot be known how much he gave to charity anonymously. Do you dispute this? Maybe it was zero. Maybe it was a lot. It is known that he did donate money to political causes, and it has been suspected that Jobs was the anonymous donor of $150 million to the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California. But that is really beside the point. However much he gave anonymously is a mystery. The burden of proof is on you if you claim, unjustifiably, that his anonymous donations amounted to zero.

[Masami von Weizegger]

People are leaving several hundred dollar electronic devices outside stores?

I guess you could argue that someone involved in the technology industry being honoured like a celebrity or religious figure is a good thing. (Sort of like the whole "why aren't scientists treated as well as movie stars given what they contribute" conundrum some people feel strongly about.) But really I'd much rather the sphere of the cult of celebrity be shrunk rather than extended.

[folti78]

Speaking of WBC:

Source
Yes I know it's PunditKitchen...

[Flagg]

Do you believe in God? Because that is the same type of logic. Burden of proof my friend, burden of proof.

It is you that is making the unjustifiable assumption here. You assume that because he didn't publicly announce charitable giving, that he therefore didn't give anything to charity. I simply stated that it cannot be known how much he gave to charity anonymously. Do you dispute this? Maybe it was zero. Maybe it was a lot. It is known that he did donate money to political causes, and it has been suspected that Jobs was the anonymous donor of $150 million to the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California. But that is really beside the point. However much he gave anonymously is a mystery. The burden of proof is on you if you claim, unjustifiably, that his anonymous donations amounted to zero.

No, actually you're claiming he made anonymous donations, and since you can't prove a negative the burden of proof is completely on you.

[Lord Pounder]

Actually had a job interview in Apple's Cork based EMEA centre today. It was a weird atmosphere. The American, European and Irish flags were at half mast and all the staff were dressed in black funeral clothes. At reception there was a small framed picture of Steve Jobs with a candle underneath.

[Crateria]

Actually had a job interview in Apple's Cork based EMEA centre today. It was a weird atmosphere. The American, European and Irish flags were at half mast and all the staff were dressed in black funeral clothes. At reception there was a small framed picture of Steve Jobs with a candle underneath.

And soon Jobs' body will be preserved and put into a glass case in Times Square so capitalists all over the world can come on pilgrimages to it.

[Magis]

No, actually you're claiming he made anonymous donations, and since you can't prove a negative the burden of proof is completely on you.

No, I have made no such claim, and I challenge you to find a quote by me in this thread where I did. What I said was very clear:

You mean he never publicly announced any donations. However much he donated anonymously cannot be known.

...Maybe it was zero. Maybe it was a lot. It is known that he did donate money to political causes, and it has been suspected that Jobs was the anonymous donor of $150 million to the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California. But that is really beside the point. However much he gave anonymously is a mystery...

Bolding and re-size done to illustrate my lack of claim that he donated anything anonymously.

So you see, I was merely stating that whatever amount Jobs donated anonymously is unknown, which is not only true, but also common sense. Congratulations on being unable to read, though.

[Flagg]

In your own quote you insinuate that he did donate to charity but it's "a mystery how much he donated". So concede the point or clarify your position dipshit.