Comments on: Steve Jobs received a new liver, and the ethics surrounding his transplant

By: Healthcare Observer

Healthcare Observer — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:18:10 +0000

‘illegals have gotten better treatment than legals. Like this case – http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/13/BAGTDQVMMG1.DTL&type=health‘

The little girl is a US citizen.

By: CHenry

CHenry — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:32:24 +0000

Is there actually proof Jobs “skipped the line?” It sounds as if Jobs had his staff find out all the options, including where the line was shortest, and took a place in that line.

By: Amy

Amy — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:11:04 +0000

We are very righteous until our own suffers. Then, we would skip the line if we could.
Be honest, do you treat the smelly uninsured alcoholic with the same enthusiasm as you would treat the 18 yo teenager with newly diagnosed lymphoma ? In your mind, you judge. When you judge, you stop considering those people as equals.

By: S Randhawa (Med Student)

S Randhawa (Med Student) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:26:52 +0000

IMHO the is pop journalism on fringes of the issues which concerns people and the health care system most. The focus shouldn’t be on why or whether it was right for him to take this decision or get this transplant- That’s a contentious issue and one where both sides of the story have strong arguments. The point is, why a country in which people would have spent $ 2.5 trillion dollars on health care in 2009 has such stark differences in the average days for liver transplant and how it can be narrowed across the board( I guess there would be a lotta loopholes around it). The problem with transplants again is the subjective preference of who needs it more. Until the day comes when you have fixed guidelines for transplantation priority- say a point system or something to that effect which looks at those in need objectively taking the various individual patient factors into account; till then people can go on and on about who should have done what and who shouldn’t have.
Personally, if your doc recommends something that he feels would make you better and you can afford it – would you go into the ethics of it as a patient ?

By: Maddy Malone, RN

Maddy Malone, RN — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:32:32 +0000

The registry for donor organs is nationwide. Anyone can receive an organ from a donor in another state, if there’s a good match. Steve Jobs was well enough to travel, whereas some recipients aren’t, or won’t because their doctor doesn’t have privileges at the donor’s hospital, or the patient’s doctor won’t relinquish care of his patient to another physican (he’ll lose money).
Who can say the liver Jobs received was supposed to/should have gone to someone else/in Tennessee? You make it sound like he stole it out from another man’s nose because he’s wealthy. That happens on TV.
Perhaps there was no one else who matched perfectly. Hospitals aren’t interested in keeping brain-dead people alive forever, waiting for a recipient to come along. Families of donors don’t like to have hospitals keep their deceased loved ones on life support in case there’s a good match with a recipient somewhere 1.) who has just decided to sign up, or 2.) who can afford the transplant, or 3.) whose insurance company (if he has one) agrees to pay for his flight, etc….
There’s so many factors I can’t even touch on that determine who gets a donor’s organ. My point is that these decisions go on every day involving people who may be rich but not famous, so nobody hears about them. You think Jobs flying to Tennessee for a transplant indicates he is selfish, and deprived someone more deserving.
The real problem is with families who don’t donate and let their relative’s liver go to waste, thereby depriving a potential recipient. THAT’s selfish.
PS: No need to sell your stock, since Apple is doing Very well WITHOUT Steve Jobs at the helm.

By: A Stitch in Haste

A Stitch in Haste — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:31:32 +0000

[...] Kevin, MD. No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post) addthis_url = [...]

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:24:00 +0000

“…the uglier aspects of the story…”

By which we mean: That there are not now, nor will there ever be, enough livers for everybody? That no matter how much money, especially other people’s money, is thrown at the problem? That choices have to be made, and that health care resources have to be rationed — just like every other good and service throughout the rest of the economy. That the only real question is who gets to make the choices, for whom, and by what standard?

I guess economics is not only the dismal science, but also the ugly science too.

By: Doc Stone

Doc Stone — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:30:15 +0000

The powerful will always buy better medical care for themselves. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent this fact of life. It is, after all, on of the reasons they are driven to succeed. Otherwise, what is the point? Even the most radical egalitarian revolution intended to prevent this fact of life will only change who the powerful are–instead of being powerful because of the wealth they generate selling a superior product to willing powers, the new powerful are the revolutionaries themselves whose power is usually based on coercion, murder, and terror. The commisars in soviet societies get better medical care than everyone else.

This is just a fact of life and anyone who is unduly disturbed by it needs to goes to envy eradication camp. It is, after all, a sin.

By: Web Media Daily – Monday June 22, 2009 | Reinventing Yourself...

Web Media Daily – Monday June 22, 2009 | Reinventing Yourself... — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:23:42 +0000

[...] Steve Jobs received a new liver, and the ethics surrounding his transplant [...]

By: Karl

Karl — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:34:23 +0000

BETTER THAN ‘JON&kATE+8″