Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Steve Jobs part of his liver, but he refused

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Steve Jobs part of his liver, but he refused

#31

Post by mikeash »

akerl_ wrote: post #16
sigzero wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not really.

Can you name a procedure that's actually life-saving, then? As far as I can tell, any medical procedure maxes out at "extending life"

Personally, I'd define the difference as being whether or not you ultimately die of the same incidence of the same disease you're treating, or of something else.

If you're treated for brain cancer and you live some more years but ultimately die of that brain cancer, it's life extending. If you're treated for brain cancer and die of an unrelated heart condition, it's life saving. I don't know how meaningful that difference ultimately is, but I think that's how I'd use the terms.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Steve Jobs part of his liver, but he refused

#33

Post by simulate »

Of all the people in the world to donate a portion of their liver to Steve Jobs, Tim Cook was the worst possible choice. Companies have travel policies where senior execs can't travel on the same plane together because, if that plane goes down, the organization loses leadership continuity.

Hundreds of thousands of people rely on Apple for their livelihood and, from Apple's perspective, losing both Cook and Jobs would have been devastating. It was shockingly irresponsible of Cook to suggest this idea.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Steve Jobs part of his liver, but he refused

#34

Post by jason_allen »

Finbel wrote: post #30

"Steve only yelled at me four or five times during the 13 years I knew him." am I the only one who think being yelled at by your boss is... a bad thing? Like, at all.

Yelling isn't great, but in high-stress situations, it can happen. What I take away from the "4 or 5 times in 13 years" is that it shows that the yelling was probably meaningful. I suspect Steve was reacting authentically rather than being a constant yeller. Ironically, I suspect he yelled because he cared. I'd rather work for someone like that than places where people don't yell because either they don't care, or they're passive aggressive.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Steve Jobs part of his liver, but he refused

#35

Post by xyclos »

nkozyra wrote: post #13
Bedon292 wrote: post #12

Anyone else think it should be titled 'potentially life-saving' instead? There was no guarantee it would have, though it did have more potential than the transplant he received later in the year. edit: titles -> titled

No, not really. Life extension is life saving, after all.

There are a million things that could go wrong even with a good match. Potentially extending life even by a second is not a guarantee.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Steve Jobs part of his liver, but he refused

#36

Post by mikemajzoub »

Bedon292 wrote: post #12

Anyone else think it should be titled 'potentially life-saving' instead? There was no guarantee it would have, though it did have more potential than the transplant he received later in the year. edit: titles -> titled

We live in an era of click bait.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Steve Jobs part of his liver, but he refused

#37

Post by carbocation »

1. He turned down proven therapy and allowed his disease to progress while pursuing alternatives which had no chance of success. Shame onto those who offer false hope. May the tide of law someday turn against you with vigor.

2. In the context of the above, is it not possible that Mr. Jobs felt uneasy with the idea of putting Mr. Cook at risk (yes, liver surgery is a procedure with risk)?

3. Getting more speculative, it is also possible that by the time that Mr. Cook discovered he was an appropriate donor, the disease had become more widely metastatic (thus limiting the value of any donation).

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Steve Jobs part of his liver, but he refused

#38

Post by Bedon292 »

nkozyra wrote: post #13
Bedon292 wrote: post #12

Anyone else think it should be titled 'potentially life-saving' instead? There was no guarantee it would have, though it did have more potential than the transplant he received later in the year. edit: titles -> titled

No, not really. Life extension is life saving, after all.

I think the difference between the two is a matter of time frame and perspective. While there is not a huge difference between the two, I read life extending as still dieing from the same cause at a later date, but still in the short term (maybe a year or two). Whereas I read life saving as completely beating the current life threatening injury / disease and dieing may years down the line to something completely different.

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Steve Jobs part of his liver, but he refused

#39

Post by tosseraccount »

carbocation wrote: post #37

1. He turned down proven therapy and allowed his disease to progress while pursuing alternatives which had no chance of success. Shame onto those who offer false hope. May the tide of law someday turn against you with vigor. 2. In the context of the above, is it not possible that Mr. Jobs felt uneasy with the idea of putting Mr. Cook at risk (yes, liver surgery is a procedure with risk)? 3. Getting more speculative,…

may the tide of law someday turn against you with vigor.

The government should force unwanted treatments on informed, responsible adults?

Re: Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Steve Jobs part of his liver, but he refused

#40

Post by carbocation »

tosseraccount wrote: post #39
carbocation wrote: post #37

1. He turned down proven therapy and allowed his disease to progress while pursuing alternatives which had no chance of success. Shame onto those who offer false hope. May the tide of law someday turn against you with vigor. 2. In the context of the above, is it not possible that Mr. Jobs felt uneasy with the idea of putting Mr. Cook at risk (yes, liver surgery is a procedure with risk)? 3. Getting more speculative,…

may the tide of law someday turn against you with vigor. The government should force unwanted treatments on informed, responsible adults?

> The government should force unwanted treatments on informed, responsible adults?

Of course not. It should punish people for peddling shams.

Post reply on HN