So how come he was chosen?
Not that I claim he should have gracefully let somebody go in front of him. I certainly would spend quite a bit of money in order to survive. Not very moral, but certainly normal...
The über-private and über-reclusive Apple CEO Steve Jobs made a rare non-keynote public appearance on Friday, joining California governor and action-film hero Arnold Schwarzenegger to promote organ-donation legislation. The San José, California Mercury News reports that the tech world's most famous transplant recipient joined …
He was presumably chosen because he was the best tissue match to the donor. That's usually how such things are decided, give it to the person who stands the least chance of rejecting it. There might have been some element of "if you can get here quick enough", which would apply more in a country the size of the US compared the the UK.
I'm not a doc but I do know that tissue compatibility is a major issue. Jobs was probably the only person that the available liver would actually match up to. In which case he was bloody lucky and and cash or importance had nothing to do with it. In fact it is more than likely Jobs could have died waiting for a compatible organ to come available, this is a fact of life (or death) for anyone waiting for any kind of organ transplant.
It is also worth pointing out that the liver is the only organ that can regenerate itself. Quite often part of the donor liver will be transplanted into one patient and the other part to a different patient, it is possible that this has happened here so Jobs may not have been the only beneficery of this liver.
The only way to improve on this situation for everybody is for us all to carry a donor's card or get onto the donor's register - or adopt Larry Niven's suggestion in the "Known Space" stories and execute criminals for spare parts...
No one has a "right" to your liver at all, unless you GIVE them that right by voluntarily becoming a doner. There no cost to do so, and no penalty if you choose not to be one. Much to the disdain of lots of other doners, even not being a doner you can still get donated organs (many of us think if you're not in the system, you should not be able to partake).
If you're not a doner, and you're dying or dead, even if you have what could be considderd the perfect organ for the perfect person on a waiting list, they simply can not take your organs, not with any amount of court effort, unless you are already a donor, or unless your Will leaves the door open as well, or unless someone has legal rights over you (because you're under 18, mentally disabled, etc).
If you don't want to be a doner, you're organs will hapily go to the grave with you...
" how many people were pushed off because they couldn't make the 4 hour window"
That is exactly why people work hard and make an uber amount of money, so that in the event that they need to be in a specified place by a specified time they can be there....
and on another point regarding transplant of organs.
Everyone has the right to life, but maybe some have more right than others.
lets say for instance, mr big wig executive, keeps fit, works hard, does plenty of charity work family man etc. For some unknown reason his liver fails and is placed on the transplant list
there is also a young, lad, spent most of his life in and out of jail, drink abuse, drugs abuse, never worked a day in his life. claiming benifits and all the rest of it.... due to alcahol abuse his liver fails... for 6 months he has been clear of drink and drugs and has started to attend colage
If it was my liver i know who i would want it to go to....
There is not a single queue for donor organs since they are given to the people who have the best tissue match. So he may also just have been lucky.
Being able to get there in time is surely going to be a bonus though. They are not going to chuck an organ in the bin, just because a "more deserving mother of 8 kids" has been on the list longer, but just happened to be on holiday in Mexico and couldn't get there in time.
Which brings up the rather macabre image of people racing to the hospital for the first come first served medical treatment.
...there are caveats, and some who are otherwise equal matches are weighed vs others. This is done by a small comittee.
First of all, certain drug use, or certain abuses may automatically disqualify you from organ donation if it's occured at all within say 5-10 years recent histroy. A history of it in the deep past (say you were reckless in your 20s and 30s, but now you're 50 and need an organ) usually has no impact. Some other factors may also disqualify you in some cases.
Age and "quality of life" and life expectancy usually weigh heavily on the decision when there are multiple matches. The primary concern is not simply who will the organ survive in, but will they a) survivie the surgery itself, b) will they remain crippled afterwards (or are they already), c) how many years do they expect to get off that organ, etc. This is generally the first set of cuts for who doea and does not get an organ, before anything else is considdered.
Distance and time are other big factors. They have to be able to contact you at a moments notice, and you have to be able to get to a transplant facility typically within hours unless they're lucky enough to be able to sustain a braindead body (which is not as frequent as you think).
Celebrities typically gas a small boost in the list because: a) they have access to funds necessary to travel great distances on short demand in short times, greatly expanding the search radius for an organ as well as their ability to get to one (they're not limited to having the transplant dome in just one part of the country, or even the world), b) they are emminently connected 24x7 and generally not only easy to get a hold of, but readily able to drop everything and travel, c) back-end financial issues. Many who might get an organ can't afford the lengthy loss of work, and don't have proper coverage for the extended recovery, and that places organs at risk in many cases, most celebrities don't have that issue.
money never plays into the decision. In fact, when an organ is geven to any celebrity, wealthy person, politicial, and a few other categories of person, an audit over the decision process is AUTOMATIC.
"Also how many people were pushed off because they couldn't make the 4 hour window what with not having a jet and all."
I think you've answered your own question here. If they can't make it to the hospital in 4 hours then the liver would be ruined, so they weren't 'pushed off' the list, they were simply too far away to be a viable recipient.
Surely it's better for the organ to be used than go to waste just because you may think a person hasn't been on the list 'long enough' or it's unfair that they have a form of transport that gets them there quicker than other people.
It's a lottery not a strict queue. If a donor happens to die that is a tissue match to you and you are in the vicinity, then you get the organ. Unfortunately many people die waiting for this to happen while others find a donor within a relatively short period of time.
I carry a donor card and personally believe that the donor register should be an opt-out scheme not opt-in.
I think its about it being a personal decision to donate, rather than the state making assumptions about what it can and can't do with you when you're not around to say no.
My wife made the decision to register when she read the bit of paper than came with her passport renewal. I'm of the mind that they can take what they want when I'm gone but I can't bring myself to actually write that down - too much 40-ish angst.
Don't know about You - but I have read more than once (newspapers, not books!) about rings of people who traffic organs. Yes, it's creepy and real.
No, I am not saying that your country/city/family/whatever does it. But I am DO saying that I don't have the confidence of not being "decesead" in order to have my organs harvested.
And THAT'S why I put a big "no" on my driving license. A shame, really. I would love to have more confidence on this state of affairs.
Says billionaire able to afford any medical care I wanted.
No doubt with the sub text that it's your own silly fault if you work for a company with no (or poor) health insurance. Or if you can't afford it in the first place.
People *say* America has the finest health care system in the world. They neglect to add "if you can afford it."
Some drunk tales from "interns" a good few years ago in a northern teaching hospital put me off ever being a donor.
It seems if you are a known donor and your chance of survival is slim they may decide to "call time" and get your organs than go that last mile and try and save you. Note that because organs have to be removed before they can remove life support and there is always the possiblity that you could still be alive (not technically brain dead) when the remove your organs.
OK junior docs and nurses are known for thier sick humor and pranks but this is beyond sick.
Some years ago there was a campaign for organ donation, featuring (as I recall - brain not up to transplant standards) a person setting up a lottery for his/her organs. Turned out to be fake. I immediately registered opt-out on everything. If they're willing to lie to get to my organs, I'm willing to rot in the ground instead of helping someone out. Trust has to be absolute in this matter, and it isn't any more.
"It seems if you are a known donor and your chance of survival is slim they may decide to "call time" and get your organs than go that last mile and try and save you."
IF that is true, that'd be fine by me. I'd rather end my life giving up organs to a worthy kid than betting on a slim chance of surviving to become a living vegetable.
If any of you needed an organ and had a private jet at your disposal you wouldn't use that to widen your search area and so increase your own chances? Seriously? I'd have that thing permanently fueled up with a crew on standby just in case. I certainly wouldn't sit dying insisting everyone else goes first.
all the more reason to pour money into that organ growing technology we occasionally hear being trotted out as the future. They're upto making kidneys last I heard. More complex organs are proving to be a bit tricky for now.
Why wait for a matching transplant when they could take some of your cells and grow a new one that is 100% matched to you?
It's probably the easiest thing you can do to save a life. It requires no work, no pain, no inconvenience, and is genuinely and easily the most chance you'll ever have to save the life of a stranger. Or if you're prepared for the smallest of inconveniences, give blood too, and you'll be a f*cking hero. Money can't make blood, money can't make organs, so make sure you give.
DO tell your relatives and next-of-kin though - tell them in no uncertain terms that you really want to do this. It's a way they can remember you as a hero, a lifesaver if they feel squeamish about it. They need to know as there is such a short window after death when your organs are usable, and they'll be in a total state having lost a loved one, and barely able to make any kind of decision or take in the news. Brief them well beforehand, make sure they know, make sure it's not news for them on the most stressful of days, and you make everyones life easier - and potentially save several lives as well.
Yes, I agree on that fully. More people could be saved that way.
I am not surprised Jobs got a liver when he needed one and I cannot blame him for that, nor do I think some poor guy lost his life because of him.
The thing that surprises me is that I cannot remember any discussion or information about the "reason" he lost his liver.
Normally, I suppose, one would think of alcohol but that, of course, cannot be the reason, even if it might explain some of his behaviour during later years.
"The thing that surprises me is that I cannot remember any discussion or information about the "reason" he lost his liver.
Normally, I suppose, one would think of alcohol but that, of course, cannot be the reason, even if it might explain some of his behaviour during later years."
There was PLENTY of discussion - hard facts are more difficult to come by. Jobs made a rare act of speaking publicly about the liver transplant but merely said that his "health issues" were "more serious" than first thought. Seeing as he was recovering from pancreatic cancer, it’s not out of the realms of possibility that these two events are connected… cancer does spread.
As for “some of his behaviour during later years” and alcohol remark, this illustrates less about Jobs and more about your own ignorance. Jobs has mellowed out considerably in recent years – you just need to look at the way he acted when he was first at Apple to see this, and it would also show that he’s also been a bloody-minded sort.
This is the point that a lot of people miss when discussing this.
Imagine a doctor knows that in an adjacent ward there is a lively little girl who will die without a donor. A badly smashed up drunk driver of around 60 get's brought in, who co-incidentally appears to have no living relatives. His chances of survival look slim even with the very best possible treatment, and if he isn't treated like right now he will die in the next few minutes.
What would you do in that situation?
Now step back. What would you do in that situation if there was also a law stating that dead peoples organs are automatically, and unquestionably available for transplant.
Now move forward a few years. The law has been changed to permit harvesting from unconscious patients with little prospect of survival.
Next move is ' with little prospect of meaningful existence'
Followed by ' a person little of value to the community'
Can you say 'mission creep'?
If I die (and I have my hopes about medical developments), then anyone who needs it is welcome to any bits and bobs they can use.
Jobs needs my liver? Fine.
Gates needs my kidneys? No prob.
Schwarzeneger needs my brain? Only a small improvement, but OK.
But if you start assuming a right to them, then I will opt out immediately. My bits, my decision.
And I don't carry a donor card. Why not? Because here in the UK, and I think also in the USA, they are meaningless; they will not touch my cadaver, whatever I have said, written, or registered with the Government, until they have clearance from my next of kin. There is no point in carrying a card - it will make no difference to what happens on the day.
I believe..... the headbone conected to the neck bone, the neck bone connected to the back bone....
How many fanboiz they will have to turn away after explaining you cannot donate organs then and there when you are alive? (well apart from Kidneys cos you come build with a spare).
Then again, maybe they don't turn them away, the governator could just terminate them... Can't imagine St Jobs would be too happy about that... Maybe he sends the governator round *after* they've ordered their iPad.
Okay, I found it, you actually need to watch the video to find what legislation is that they are promoting. Funny how the original article text goes into depth on the Palm stock price and doesn't even mention what the proposed legislation is.
BTW, incase you were wondering, they are proposing that anyone applying for a driving licence must either:
* say whether they want to be an organ donor
* or consent to being asked the question at a later date
There was also talk about a database of willing live kidney donors (not sure if that requires legislation)
Personally, I reckon the would get a greater increase in donors if they made it mandatory before getting a motorcycle licence.
BTW, how long before the iPhone mandatory registration asks if you want to be an organ donor?
MAN: Hello. Uhh, can we have your liver?
MR. BROWN: My what?
MAN: Your liver. It's a large, ehh, glandular organ in your abdomen.
MAN: You know, it's, uh,-- it's reddish-brown. It's sort of, uhh,--
MR. BROWN: Yeah,-- y-- y-- yeah, I know what it is, but... I'm using it, eh.
ERIC: Come on, sir.
MR. BROWN: Hey! Hey! Stop!
ERIC: Don't muck us about.
MR. BROWN: Stop! Hey! Hey! Stop it. Hey!
MR. BROWN: Ge-- get off.
MAN: What's this, then? Mmh.
MR. BROWN: A liver donor's card.
MAN: Need we say more?
MR. BROWN: Listen! I can't give it to you now. It says, 'in the event of death'. Uh. Oh! Ah. Ah. Eh.
MAN: No one who has ever had their liver taken out by us has survived.
MR. BROWN: Agh.
ERIC: Just lie there, sir. It won't take a minute.
MR. BROWN: [screaming]
@Ratfox & Thomas 18
There's more to receiving organ donation than being first in the queue. There has to be a level of compatibility between organ and recipient for the transplant to succeed - there's a reason why siblings are asked to donate a kidney to a sick brother or sister.
"Mr Shifty" has more money than the average American and US healthcare costs money. He can afford a private jet. So his catchment area for potential donor organs is going to be much wider than for Joe Bluecollar with no medical insurance. But that's the American dream. Perhaps some kind of universal, federally underwritten health service is required?
In more developed countries one does not need to fly its own private jet to get to his new liver. Organs are delivered by state-owned jets (usually military - they should not fly only for fun on taxpayers money, but VIPs jets coud be used as well, if needed) to those in the waiting list in the nearest hospital which can handle a transplant. Otherwise "self-made man" gets a sinister meaning...
Everyone knows the US has the best healthcare system in the world. There is no disputing that.
Politicos from Canada, Cuba, the UK and everywhere else fly into the US to get things done.
I'll signup to donate my organs when the death tax is dead. What use do I have for my organs when im dead? What rights does our government has to my money when im dead?
I think it's safe to say that the American people are sick and tired of the elites trying to run the country. We have very serious problems, debt out of control and everytime one of these elite idiots gets something it's a world changing event.
The lefties always say "my body my choice" and this guy sure ain't no right-winger so why doesn't he crawl back into the hole he came out of where his friends say my body my choice.
I'll never ever own any apple product because of the way this jackass thinks he's god. We need team america world police 2.
for you, my lad. The US has really good health-care for those who can afford it and for those whose insurers don't withdraw treatment and for those who don't have a pre-existing condition and for those that live in the right state, etc.
Here in the UK we also play host to visitors from around the world, because our treatment for certain conditions is considered best. Some of our people go to continental Europe or Scandinavia for treatment because that is where certain specialisms are thought to be superior or simply better suited to whatever it is that ails you.
The difference here in the UK is, no matter what is wrong with you, you get treated and they don't check your pockets for credit cards or cash before they'll even examine you.
Health-care in the USA can be very sophisticated if you can afford it because the insurers buy sophisticated bits of kit. They know they can hire it out and make a fortune out of people's misfortunes. If the USA is so good at health-care, why is your life-expectancy so abysmally poor?
Here in Australia, it is brow-beaten into your head that IF you decide to travel to the states, make damn sure you have full cover travel insurance. Here, you can get private health insurance for the convenience of not having to wait. but for small routine episodes, just walk in, get examined, maybe x-rayed, walk out. No drama. Canada is pretty much the same way. It's what many of you in the states call 'socialised medicine'. The states do have the best healthcare system in the world -privately owned. And to think our previous government was slowly trying to erode the health care system to make it like the states. Duh.
Actually, the medical destinations of choice for many of the richest people in the world seem to be France and Switzerland. America does have a few centers of medical excellence, such as that socialist Mayo Clinic.
"The best interest of the patient is the only interest to be considered..."
However, for organ transplants, the US does have certain unique advantages. Laws that are very friendly to rich people (unlike the nasty little poster) and a large supply of corpses produced by violence. (Hmm... Now I wonder if gunshot victims are also available as organ donors?)
Workers at an Apple Store in Towson, Maryland have voted to form a union, making them the first of the iGiant's retail staff to do so in the United States.
Out of 110 eligible voters, 65 employees voted in support of unionization versus 33 who voted against it. The organizing committee, known as the Coalition of Organized Retail Employees (CORE), has now filed to certify the results with America's National Labor Relations Board. Members joining this first-ever US Apple Store union will be represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM).
"I applaud the courage displayed by CORE members at the Apple store in Towson for achieving this historic victory," IAM's international president Robert Martinez Jr said in a statement on Saturday. "They made a huge sacrifice for thousands of Apple employees across the nation who had all eyes on this election."
Apple has introduced a game-changer into its upcoming iOS 16 for those who hate CAPTCHAs, in the form of a feature called Automatic Verification.
The feature does exactly what its name alludes to: automatically verifies devices and Apple ID accounts without any action from the user. When iOS 16 ships later this year, it will eliminate the frustrating requirement to select all the stops signs in a photo or decipher a string of characters.
The news was mentioned at Apple's 33rd annual Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC) along with the usual slew of features designed to enhance the functionality of iPhones.
Not many people are talking about Apple's recent WWDC from an enterprise standpoint. But identity and machine management tool maker JumpCloud says a "shim" to connect "the login to the device through to the Safari browser" is a notable development.
JumpCloud provides identity services, which is why chief strategy officer Greg Keller zeroed in on the feature, which his company details further in its latest IT trends report.
The result, said Keller, was "an even more powerful login experience into these devices."
Democrat lawmakers want the FTC to investigate Apple and Google's online ad trackers, which they say amount to unfair and deceptive business practices and pose a privacy and security risk to people using the tech giants' mobile devices.
US Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) and House Representative Sara Jacobs (D-CA) requested on Friday that the watchdog launch a probe into Apple and Google, hours before the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, clearing the way for individual states to ban access to abortions.
In the days leading up to the court's action, some of these same lawmakers had also introduced data privacy bills, including a proposal that would make it illegal for data brokers to sell sensitive location and health information of individuals' medical treatment.
Another day, another legal claim against Apple for deliberately throttling the performance of its iPhones to save battery power.
This latest case was brought by Justin Gutmann, who has asked the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to approve a collective action that could allow as many as 25 million Brits to claim compensation from the American technology giant. He claims the iGiant secretly degraded their smartphones' performance to make the battery power last longer.
Apple may therefore have to cough up an eye-popping £768 million ($927 million), Gutmann's lawyers estimated, Bloomberg first reported this week.
A security flaw in Apple's Safari web browser that was patched nine years ago was exploited in the wild again some months ago – a perfect example of a "zombie" vulnerability.
That's a bug that's been patched, but for whatever reason can be abused all over again on up-to-date systems and devices – or a bug closely related to a patched one.
In a write-up this month, Maddie Stone, a top researcher on Google's Project Zero team, shared details of a Safari vulnerability that folks realized in January this year was being exploited in the wild. This remote-code-execution flaw could be abused by a specially crafted website, for example, to run spyware on someone's device when viewed in their browser.
Apple's Intelligent Tracking Protection (ITP) in Safari has implemented privacy through forgetfulness, and the result is that users of Twitter may have to remind Safari of their preferences.
Apple's privacy technology has been designed to block third-party cookies in its Safari browser. But according to software developer Jeff Johnson, it keeps such a tight lid on browser-based storage that if the user hasn't visited Twitter for a week, ITP will delete user set preferences.
So instead of seeing "Latest Tweets" – a chronological timeline – Safari users returning to Twitter after seven days can expect to see Twitter's algorithmically curated tweets under its "Home" setting.
Analysis For all the pomp and circumstance surrounding Apple's move to homegrown silicon for Macs, the tech giant has admitted that the new M2 chip isn't quite the slam dunk that its predecessor was when compared to the latest from Apple's former CPU supplier, Intel.
During its WWDC 2022 keynote Monday, Apple focused its high-level sales pitch for the M2 on claims that the chip is much more power efficient than Intel's latest laptop CPUs. But while doing so, the iPhone maker admitted that Intel has it beat, at least for now, when it comes to CPU performance.
Apple laid this out clearly during the presentation when Johny Srouji, Apple's senior vice president of hardware technologies, said the M2's eight-core CPU will provide 87 percent of the peak performance of Intel's 12-core Core i7-1260P while using just a quarter of the rival chip's power.
A woman in the US has been charged with murder after she allegedly tracked down her boyfriend using an Apple AirTag and ran him over after seeing him with another lady.
Gaylyn Morris, 26, found her partner Andre Smith, also 26, at Tilly’s Pub in an Indianapolis shopping mall with the help of the gadget in the early hours of June 3, it is claimed.
A witness said Morris had driven up to him in the parking lot and inquired whether Smith was in the bar, stating she had a GPS tracker that showed he was inside, according to an affidavit [PDF] by Detective Gregory Shue. Morris, the witness said, subsequently spotted Smith within the establishment.
The United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on Friday said it intends to launch an investigation of Apple's and Google's market power with respect to mobile browsers and cloud gaming, and to take enforcement action against Google for its app store payment practices.
"When it comes to how people use mobile phones, Apple and Google hold all the cards," said Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive of the CMA, in a statement. "As good as many of their services and products are, their strong grip on mobile ecosystems allows them to shut out competitors, holding back the British tech sector and limiting choice."
The decision to open a formal investigation follows the CMA's year-long study of the mobile ecosystem. The competition watchdog's findings have been published in a report that concludes Apple and Google have a duopoly that limits competition.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022