Did Steve Jobs' wallet help cut transplant wait?

Frank, I hope you and your wife are successful in your endeavors to get her double lung transplant. Hang in there!

For the most part, I see no problem with Jobs getting his liver transplant, no matter how many hoops he had to jump through. As one man, Jobs has contributed more to modern communication technology than any one. I wish him a long healthy life.

"those with resources can make the system work in their favor"

This must be an article from "No @!$%#e - the magazine".

If you have money you can make things happen faster.

I'm sure that Jobs did not search around himself and find that he could get a liver faster in TN. He just said to one of his subordinates "I need a liver transplant" and they got it done.

People with money can afford to have a team of people working on solving a problem for them. It's no different from being able to hire a team of the best lawyers instead of one flunky in a dirty sportcoat.

This really shouldn't be an issue with thousands of people dying every day from something and all those organs going to waste. Hell, your dead. Why not sell them, or donate them. There would be plenty to go around. I'm fortunate and glad I am not in Jobs situation. Bravo, Steve. You earn your money, spend it however you like.

You are right. It shouldn't be an issue. Were all the people who now need organs on donor lists? Would they have donated? Would their families have approved? How many want an organ now but would have denied the use of a loved ones organs for somebody else? I am on lists. I have registered with organizations online. If everybody would donate, there wouldn't be a problem. But people are dumb. And whine when it's their number that gets called.

I see we have another issue here where people spout off about something they really know little about. I happen to be a multiple transplant recipient. I assure you, I know this subject. I know what I had to go through for over 4 years to qualify for my initial Liver transplant. I also know UNOS allegedly became a National listing system rather than the 5 state listing source it had been. Being from Wisconsin, I was fortunate before the rules changed due to the Mickey Mantle issue. Wisconsin has a great history of willing donors. Our Governor at the time initially refused to go along with the National listing base. He was forced into it finally. Now a person can become critically ill before qualifying or coming up on the list over another. Some cases are so bad the person has a 2 week life span. As for Most people on lists to receive an organ CANNOT be a donor. Each person is different of course but if a Liver recipient has a Liver disease that can cause health problems, why would that person be allowed to donate and lead to health risk for a future recipient. Trying to demean recipients by claiming we would not donate is ridiculous , mundane and hypothetical. Many people today do donate. That is not as much of a problem as it had been. Matching and the rules are more problematic now with the lack of organs. I lost a good friend on the operating table because he was forced to wait to long and was so sick he could not handle the surgery for a Liver Transplant. I am so very , very blessed and thank my dear Lord every day and thru the day. We do need more donors but organs have become in such large demand, it will take some time to catch up. Please stop the negative attitude toward people who were given a real blessing in a transplant. I assure you, I would donate every organ but cannot donate even one. My disease prevents that. Many of us have diseases that prevent donating. Other issues come into play for recipients regarding donating. I am now 11 years out on my second Liver. The first Liver had been found to have the same disease Walter Payton died from. I was in the hospital, very sick the entire 1998 summer waiting for a replacement organ. So many people die waiting for one. I really have a lot to say about this but this is not the place. Please do some research people then speak out. This was a case of money helping a person get what those without money would not have. As for jumping through hoops, we all do and a great deal more than Job. We don't have the funds or clout to just go to another State. I am sure that would not be as easy as it is portrayed in this case. We must follow UNOS directions, period. They can, do and have refused people to move to another State where chances might be better. It is totally their call. My understanding of the rules however really should be equal anywhere and was initiated to allegedly be more fair and not allow for this scenario to take place again. Bewildered about how Job was allowed a transplant at all having Cancer outside the Liver and spread to the Liver as with the Mickey Mantle case. Absolute rule about Cancer outside the Liver and even in the Liver depends on how it progressed and risk of being outside the Liver. Also cut off age is allegedly 63 years old!

RW

People donate their organs in good faith understanding that their organs will go to the person who needs them the most. I am not an donor but, I would be livid if I knew my organs were going to the highest bidder.

If he has the money and power to buy his way to a new organ he should pay the family of the donor a hefty sum as, it's just like the rich and powerful showing up in the soup kitchen.

This is why I won't donate my organs, people just buy themselves to the top of the list and those who really deserve it die.

Auzziegirl, Steve Jobs has never been credited for being in the forefront of communications. The internet was built on PC-compatible systems, cell phones were around long before the iPhone (and so was every "revolutionary" feature in it, including the newly lauded video capability that even prepaid phones have long had), and it took over 15 years for Apple to become truly compatible with standard networking protocols. Apple makes shiny, expensive toys for people who want to act smug about "normal people", they are most certainly not a bastion of human achievement.

And for all those who say that he deserves it because of his achievements, I really feel bad for you. Being rich doesn't make anyone my idol.

What a rabble rousing article! Let's take away all privileges, earned or not, that people of wealth may get. The same for the people in the executive and legislative branches of government. NO ONE SHOULD EVER GET ANY FAVORED TREATMENT. Alchoholics who have pickled their livers should not be denied liver transplants, nor should people engaaging in risky sexual activities or iv drug users that contract hepatitis B leading to cirrhosis be denied transplants. Afterall, we're all equal and entitled. The tax payers should pay for all who can not afford the costs. Let's do everything for everyone--afterall, it's only FAIR. The pure insanity of such thought is akin to magical thinking.

Cutter, your reasoning indicates that you believe you have the right to judge someone's life or circumstances. It is your opinion that's vulgar and akin to magical thinking.

And by the way, an organ isn't a commodity, it is a life-preserving body part. In a state of emergency, we're all equal.

Best of luck, Frank.

So sad and sickening, but still true; money is what it's all about to doctors!!!

I don't think anyone is "demonizing" Jobs. It's more about demonizing the greedy health insurance industry and rightly so!

MagnesiumWorks, you are so right! The opponents of universal health care about use the "rationing" card to argue against it. In fact, many, many procedures and tests are also rationed. Transplants are a prime example. Prisoners will be put ahead of law-abiding citizens, including kids, for transplants and other procedures because they have a viable source to pay the costs - we the taxpayer. This happens all the time, it is not an hysterical argument. Murderers and rapists are getting lungs, livers, hearts, kidneys, etc., while decent people are pushed back on the list. Ability to pay puts you at the head of the line.

This is how Natalie Cole, Larry Hagman, that degenerate Jerry Garcia, and other celebrities have gotten their organs within days or weeks after their need arises.

I need lab work and a mammogram, which I haven't had in almost 4 years, but my present insurance has a $1500 deductible, and I simply can't afford to have these done, despite paying a hefty ins. premium every payday.

It occurred to me today that I can afford to die, but I can't afford to get sick. There are millions of people like me in this country.

Magsby but dont you know that you are expected to have at least 1500 dollars in savings? Thats what everyone says. I dont know about you but I live paycheck to paycheck. And people with begrudge me because I spend a little extra on the internet. Which I cant quite figure out, I guess according to many of the posters here if you are behind on anything or dont have money for anything then you should be forced to stay at home, not be able to splurge on a steak dinner ever, not have a television, phone or internet, and just look at your four walls all day.

Magsby - I've got news for you. If you don't have $1,500 to see your doctor you really can't afford to die either. Got death insurance? Someone is going to pay.

The second that universal health care becomes the law is the second I become a donor.

I find it totally apprehensive that doctors would charge so much for 3 hours' work...$200,000?!?! And that's not counting the follow-up care!

The AMA really sickens me, they want us to feel bad for the poor doctors who are being forced into lower income brackets...even the poorest of doctors affords a very comfortable lifestyle. Doctors use their life-giving product as a rationalization for their high costs. Hell, what I do is in extreme demand but I can't find a job that pays above $70,000 in my state because people feel that IT people are not deserving! What I do breathes the very life into almost every aspect of modern life.

When doctors are forced to charge reasonable rates and can't get away with provisioning organs for the rich, I'll gladly give my eyes, heart, lungs, whatever...!

Its an unfortunate reality that "Resources" are a factor in all cases of need, and Health Care is no exception. There can also be debates on individual "Worth", since while we would like to claim that we are all equals, the reality again is that some people have contributed more to society than others. Plus then there's the 'celebrety' factor as already alluded to.

Not to point any fingers at any individuals, but merely illustratrating that the situation requires is always more complicated than it may otherwise initially appear and it requires sensitivities and empathies on multiple levels. For a hypothetical example, would society consider it acceptable to let a rich guy "cut the line" if he does so while making a donation that pays for 10 other patients that would otherwise not benefit due to their lack of financial resources? From a societally-based "big picture" is that not a net gain? (Spock: "Needs of the Many...") FWIW, I'm not necessarily advocating this position, but merely pointing out that it exists and that its an area in which there needs to be an open debate by Society to seek out the empathy balance.

And while much ado is being made about this report on Steve Jobs, there's a lot of speculation as to how much elements such as "resources" may have played a part despite a lot of missing information.

Specifically, the original article says that there's roughly 1,500 transplants done per fiscal quarter and that there's similarly around 15,000 patients on waiting lists - - so if we ignore medical factors (tissue matching, etc) and simply look at the math macroscopically, these two values mean that 15,000/1,500 per quarter = everyone on the list gets 'their turn' if they can hold out for 10 fiscal quarters.

And since ten quarters is 2.5 years, the next question is "How long had Steve been on the waiting list?" To over-simplify but recognize that there are medically based prioritization elements, one can probably say that if he had been on the wait list for 1.25 years, then his "turn" was probably statistically normal.

But we don't know for how long he was on the list. The current situation is that there's some factors that are probably not likely to be disclosed, either due to patient privacy, or simply because someone believes that it will generate some bad PR somehow/somewhere.

The bottom line to all of this is that organ donations & transplants invariably incur a supply-vs-demand element, which will persist even after medical technology perfects our ability to clone our own organs, because there's still going to be that persistant "resource" variable for how to pay for it. I don't want to suggest that the "Haves" deserve this while the "Have Nots" don't, but I'm not so naiive as to believe that it isn't going to happen at some level, regardless of how good our intentions.

-hh

More like the finest health care system money can buy.

I am sure you can get the best healthcare here if you can pay for it.

If the system is 24th, that's an indication of what the system does for the average person.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the finest healthcare in the world is available here, but that they "system" is flawed.

Which report? What's "recent?"

I know the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 released a report ranking the United States thirty-seventh in overall quality. However, this study is considered suspect, as demonstrated by the following excerpt from "Misleading Indicators," The Atlantic Monthly, Nov. 2009:

Take the World Health Organization's infamous ranking of national health systems, which in 2000 put the United States below such health-care luminaries as Oman, Colombia, and Morocco. Would you really rather get sick in Bogota [can't insert "a" with grave] than in Berkeley? The WHO analysts heavily weighted somewhat murky estimates like equality of access, knocking us down to two places above Cuba, where antibiotics are scarce for everybody. This is so bizarre that conservatives don't sound entirely crazy when they voice suspicions that the WHO chose its weights to produce just this result. The WHO has since stopped publishing the index.

NO- a good jounalist would not go for the cheap emotion like you are pushing for.

You don't see the difference between a donation and a bribe? If Jobs simply wanted to do good and give back to the people all over the globe who have purchased his products and made him rich, he would have donated without any expectation of special consideration.

This was a bribe and shame on him and on those who accepted it. What goes around comes around.

That's why this is an OPINION piece. Speculation is completely acceptable for an op-ed article.

Keeper11,

If you think this article is acceptable because it is an OPINION piece then do you think all the people that buy and read STAR magazine and NATIONAL ENQUIRER think they are just buying an OPINION piece magazine?

What a joke.

lia,

My pessimistic side says that his money gave him advantage in the selection process. However, you're riight. When did news become a mind game of if, if, if, if. let's get some facts. How about some investigative reporting with the key word being investigate. I'd like to know if the hospital or foundations got any money recently, or any of the selection committee members. But without any real knowledge, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Weak article -- need facts.

to lia-1172043:

thanks for getting right to the point, and stating it so well.

Show of hands. Especially those commenting here. Who among you would NOT have done exactly the same thing given the resources to do so?

Like the previous poster said, it is a very pathetic article! Where is an investigation into the allegations presented? As an article about transplants, it is informative and useful. But when it comes to dicussing individual people's actions (i.e. Steve Jobs), details are important. However, no details are presented. I call on the author to appologize for the insidious nature and tone of this article.

This is an op-ed piece, not an investigative expose.

You are missing the point, Dan Robinson. And, for the record, I am addressing your question only, not Mr. Jobs' situation, as I do not claim to know the details.

One would only do it because one has to do it and can get away with it under the current system.

Ask the real question, which is: "Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the system was fair for everyone?

MRED - no system will solve the problem until it gets everybody to be a willing donor, not just a willing recipient. Wouldn't it be better if the system accomodated people willing to donate and gave the leftovers to people too selfish to do so?

It is entirely based on ifs.....not facts, and only ends up being inflamatory and unfair to Jobs as well

Lia, well put and all valid points. See post #62 for the opinion of a liver expert on this case.

lorent, I appreciate your question. I think the people of the United States have repeatedly shown themselves to be remarkably generous when it comes to the plight of others in need. One need only consider 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina (among many other disasters in which we have come to the aid of others: Ethiopia, Russia, China, Korea, Germany, etc.) to come to the conclusion that we will have enough donors in a properly administered system. Many times, and very sadly, it is the logistics that keep people from receiving the transplants. In either case, it is not our way to use retribution against people who choose not to participate, rather we celebrate those who are generous and that celebration inspires others to act likewise.

Why shouldn't he? Hmmm....well, this comes to mind; what if you, your husband, son, etc., have been on the tranplant list for say 8 months. A liver (or any needed organ) becomes available and it's a perfect match for you or your family member. BUT, along comes John Doe, very rich and influential, and he has been on the transplant list for say, 3 months and this organ is also a match for him. He swoops in with his millions to donate a new wing or even an entire building and PRESTO! he has a new liver / heart / lung, whatever. You have nothing, but hopes that are shattered and then you die in two weeks.

I think that about covers it.

"He swoops in with his millions to donate a new wing or even an entire building and PRESTO! he has a new liver / heart / lung, whatever. You have nothing..."

Except a new wing/building which is used to accomidate many others with similar problems. Frequently are lives lost due to lack of resources/availability of care/science. Let the rich man have his liver, and we can enjoy his companies innovations for a bit longer. Let the hospital/whatever benefit from his "generosity" because it also benefits, everyone who will every need that new wing/building. Keep moving forward!

But this is the American way always has been and always will be. It is always all about money those who have it win those who don't lose.

Michele- only looking at one side

well, this comes to mind; what if you, your husband, son, etc., have been on the tranplant list and you have a load of money that can help them get the transplant faster?

Would you use that money to get them the transplant?

wheels460: It's only the "American Way" as long as Americans accept it as such; the moment we decide to say no to the common, frequent and inhuman treatment of our fellow Americans, it will no longer be the "American Way."

I have registered to donate my organs, and I will donate if I know systems fair. It is NOT fair, so I guess I need to remove myself from it. I am not donating if the richest guy around can grab my organs. I want the poor to have equal rights to my organs. That is what I believe people like me want to happen when they die.

I don't care if Jobs gives a wing to the hospital. If my gift is free, then fair... end of story.

wsmcke: the reason that there is an issue at all is that not enough people agree to donate their organs. The demand outstrips the supply and the lists are getting longer al the time.

And don't believe the crap about Jobs allegedly skipping ahead in the line. The system, which is controlled on a national not local level, precluding line jumping. The system offers an available organ to a matching patient on the basis of highest level of need. The sicker you are, the higheryou are on th list. I know. I was there. And Jobs weas clearly very ill when he disappeared from public view before his transplant. He showed significant wasting. One of hte effects of liver failure is that it results in the body eating up available muscle in its attempt to inject protien into your system. I know; I lost 35 lbs of muscle mass before my transplant.

SO PEOPLE, PLEASE REGISTER TO DONATE! YOU TOO CAN SAVE A LIFE!

wsmcke--If you take your self off the list, be one of the first to rejoin the list putting in some of your own stipulations of a contract that they can only use your organs for the needest "or poorest" patience first and not the ones willing to pay money or donate to them.

Need $$$ to see a head shrink too..be in same boat..rich vs poor.

What the he** are you talking about? What do we have now if not an an obscenely wealth based "environment of greed and entitlement" in this pathetic excuse of a health "care" system. That's why rich people oppose it---they are scared to losing their advantage, that only their money can buy over everyone else

Do you think the government will make that better or worse John?

Do you think the government will make that better Bartman?

What goverment..there are a lot on planet earth!

Any government that takes control of healthcare.

I think the United States Federal Government will make health care much better when compared to the big operators. I am looking forward to free, socialized medicine for every American citizen. And for those of you who want to shout "socialist," I want your ignorant selves to begin petitioning your government, through letters and protest, to shutdown the socialized national defense (military), the socialized intelligence, the socialized police, the socialized fire departments, the socialized schools, etc., today. If you don't, you have identified yourselves as hypocrites.

After the raping of our economy by big oil, big banks, big finance, big insurance, big real estate, big pharma, big medicine, etc., it is critical that henceforth, for all upcoming economic cycles, we take some of the potential profit off of the the table and place it in a free health care system that will benefit everyone.

We paid for the profits of these corporations all along the way. Then we paid to bail them out when they failed. We should pay for a systems that benefits all of us. Read this: We are going to spend the money the next time they fail (and beg for our assistance), anyway; why not use it to take care of ourselves now, before we find ourselves screwed by these people once again?

We owe ourselves the respect of ensuring that as business cycles go boom and bust and as these companies profit from our sweat, even as we are losing our jobs, being denied employment due to their mis-management and fraud, age and other forms of discrimination (including health discrimination) and even as as we pay for their profits and losses, that we have put aside money to care for ourselves. That should be a portion of the economic pie that is no longer available inclusion into the "profit" system.

That's my two cents

I'll give you credit for knowing the value of your comments.

MRED1 I am not ignorant. Peoples apathy creates bigger and more involved governments which in time will take away our freedoms through back door means.

MRED1 Here is the government at it's finest;

A U.S. Senate committee revealed last year that public health insurer Medicare had paid as much as $92 million from 2000 to 2007 for medical services or equipment ordered or prescribed by doctors who were dead at the time.

Many had died more than five years before the date when they supposedly ordered or authorized the service.

Healthcare fraud said to cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars a year has garnered increased attention amid the congressional debate about overhauling the U.S. healthcare system -- especially since President Barack Obama wants to cover some of the cost of reforms by fighting abuse

Hate to say..thats is what is going on in real life today..not a movie..they sell human organs galore all over..and they are very fresh organs..how they do that..MURDER is one word to use.

It's not too far-fetched. I read somewhere where colonies of "donors" are being bred for limb,eye, skin,and organ replacement harvesting.

Kinda rings of the grave robbers in old England. They'd dig up a corpse so soon after the funeral, the stiff didn't even have a chance to get cold.

Sylviag, they are doing that already from what I have read. Wasn't it last year where they were picking up poor people and keeping them hostagewhile using them to provide blood for transfusion etc. I think it was happening either in India or Pakistan if I remember correctly.

I do believe I read somewhere where poor people were either selling a kidney or some poor folks would wake up (if they do) to find they have had a kidney removed also. The organs market lies and if you have the money you can buy whatever organ you want in some countries. It is no different from stealing babies and selling them to wealthy folks who can afford to pay.

I wish Jobs the best of luck and a speedy recovery. I am glad he has the wealth that he can pay for the best healthcare money can buy, just like polititians get.

Mind you, if he had wanted to he could have gone overseas to some other country to have his transplant. Pity he decided to do it here, because there will always be questions about his transplant and possible jumping the queue so to speak. Perhaps he looked on Tennessee as a foreign country being from California and all. LOL

Well as the Good Book states that" to whom much is given, much is expected" i.e. if you get a second chance or you obtain great wealth then you are required to capitalize on it and do great things with the enormous amounts of blessing you have received.

Like these rich SOB's ever worked!

Actually Jack was working towards a valid point.

I always hear people raging about what money shouldn't be able to buy you, but I never hear those people telling me what money should be able to buy.

Jack Bond you sound like a Jack A$$. Ferraris and Health Care have nothing to do with another; it is called a Red Herring your argument is invalid. If you were in Frank’s shoes (first post) you would be singing a different tune.

That freeloader could be a 5 year old child..Jobs has how many years left compared to a 5 year old child?

SWM: In a world where the insurance companies and healthcare providers have gone so far overboard that they've removed the capacity for millions of people to reasonably and adequately protect themselves and their families, health care will become what the citizenry demands it become because, those with profit incentive have marginalized their own voice through their own actions.

We have a Democratic Republic, not a Meritocracy. In a democracy we believe in majority rule but we also believe in the protection of the rights of the minority.

In your "Meritocratic World," were some disaster to befall you and/or your loved ones, that would just be "too bad, Chum." "Gather the tattered remnants of your life and get out, we've got property to move and you're in the way."

Wife's going to die? "Too bad, Chum." Kid's going to die? "Too bad Chum." You're going to die? "Too bad Chum, we can't make money from that." Get it? You are fish bait by your own philosophy.

Where are you getting your data Fred Freedom? Will you be kind enough to cite the specific publications and studies that support your arguments? What study or publication shows that " A free-market in organs would increase the number of available organs for transplant." or "The current non-pay system kills tens of thousands of people every year needlessly."?

I'd like to see your evidence Fred because frankly, I am certain it does not exist. It's pretty obvious even to the casual observer that you are simply trying to blow some sophomoric free-market smoke up everyone's dress.