Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Steve Jobs part of his liver, but he refused | Hacker News Reader

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

washingtonpost.com

89 pointsobeone44 comments

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).

<i>may the tide of law someday turn against you with vigor.</i>

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

No, he's saying that those that sell alternative treatments that don't work should be persecuted for fraud.

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

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

>> Shame onto those who offer false hope. May the tide of law someday turn against you with vigor.

This is pretty clearly referring to purveyors of alternative medicine, not Steve Jobs.

I suppose the question would be: Are you truly "informed" if you believe false information about particular treatments? I'm guessing the laws being suggested would relate to fradulent claims about the contents or efficacy of particular substances or treatments.

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

I don't see why the title shouldn't just be specific about what gift he offered.

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.

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.

At the time of the story in question, no one knew how much time Jobs would gain by such a transplant. It might have been two decades rather than two years. Or two months.

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.

Unless you know of someone who lives forever, yes it is.

Getting another second is all the live-saving we have.

In the end, we all will die.

We live in an era of click bait.

"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.

I can see how yelling can be interpreted as caring, but I can also see it as just another poorly way to handle conflicts (kind of like being passive aggressive which I've seen a few examples of Steve Jobs being). I suppose I'd rather work in a place where my boss handle conflicts without yelling nor being passive aggressive.

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.

Some people value friendship and family more than their stock price. They were already wealthy and had lived good lives.

Was it best for Apple stockholders? Maybe not. However I can see that they were truly friends and I envy it. Most ego-maniacs at the top are willing to cut each others throats and heres two who would do anything for each other.

Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool.

I wonder where Apple would be today / a year from now if he were still around. Would anything major be different?

This has popped up three or four times on the front page today. Why? This is the least interesting piece of information I have heard in years

Reply on news.ycombinator.com