Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Businesses Apple News

Steve Jobs Had a Liver Transplant Two Months Ago 436

Posted by Soulskill
from the need-it-to-live-hence-the-name dept.
evw writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that Steve Jobs had a liver transplant two months ago (subscription required, alternative coverage is available based on the WSJ's report). He is on track to return to work at the end of June. 'William Hawkins, a doctor specializing in pancreatic and gastrointestinal surgery at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo., said that the type of slow-growing pancreatic tumor Mr. Jobs had will commonly metastasize in another organ during a patient's lifetime, and that the organ is usually the liver. ... Having the procedure done in Tennessee makes sense because its list of patients waiting for transplants is shorter than in many other states.' There are no residency requirements for transplants."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Steve Jobs Had a Liver Transplant Two Months Ago

Comments Filter:
  • by wjsteele (255130) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @07:23AM (#28400953)
    for a recovery. My Dad's liver transplant had him out for almost 6 months. In fact, right after his surgery, he was in isolation for 30 days, then in ICU for another 30. I'd be real suprised if he actually was able to "return to work" this month. Even "part time," physical therapy and all the tweaking they need to do with the medications (anti rejection, etc.) to get his chemical balances back is a big thing.

    I wish him well... my Dad was able to go to Oshkosh (AirVenture) with me 1 year after his surgery. A trip I will never forget.

    Bill
    • by WarwickRyan (780794) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @07:30AM (#28400987)

      It's hard to compare to 'normal' people, because someone like Steve Jobs would have had an team of the very best surgeons working on him, and generally the best medical care that money could buy..

      • by Jurily (900488) <jurily@@@gmail...com> on Saturday June 20, 2009 @07:43AM (#28401049)

        It's hard to compare to 'normal' people, because someone like Steve Jobs would have had an team of the very best surgeons working on him, and generally the best medical care that money could buy..

        This being Slashdot, that raises interesting questions. Steve's not rich because he was born into a banker family, in fact, he was adopted. He's rich because people bought his products.

        So, is it bad if he uses that money to get the kind of treatment you and I can't afford?

        • by D-Cypell (446534) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @08:04AM (#28401129)

          "So, is it bad if he uses that money to get the kind of treatment you and I can't afford?"

          Always an interesting question. I would say yes, it is a bad thing. Not for Steve of course, but for what it represents.

          Steve Jobs has large wads of cash as that is what we give people who prove themselves to be great assets to the economic system. No doubt, Steve Jobs is exactly that, but should your value to the economic system be the primary factor behind the level of medical care you receive? I would say no. Steve Jobs has no more right to the best standard of care than does somebody who has been in the police force, or a teacher (for example) their entire lives. In fact, I would say that anybody who has lived a moral, decent life should receive the same level of medical care, and that should be the highest available at the time. The only people that I would say might not deserve this are serious/career criminals.

          It is easy to get confused in this matter because we are talking about Steve Jobs, who seems a pretty smart and decent guy anyway. How about if we replace Steve with Ken Lay, should 'Kenny Boy' receive a much higher level of medical care than somebody who choose to be a librarian rather than a 'business tycoon'?

          You can probably guess I one of those evil socialist types ;o), but I come from a country where we have socialised medicine. It is certainly not perfect, but I don't believe that is a fault with the system, but a fault with the people running it.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Timosch (1212482)
            I tend to go even further: Even criminals, who in your opinion don't deserve that, should enjoy equal medical treatment. We send them in jail for what they've done, but when everyone else would get the same medical treatment, denying it to them would be a cruel and excessive punishment.
            • by MrKaos (858439) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @09:48AM (#28401831) Journal

              I tend to go even further: Even criminals, who in your opinion don't deserve that, should enjoy equal medical treatment.

              The true measure of a society is not how they treat the most valued, but how they treat the most despised.

              • by wickerprints (1094741) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @10:28AM (#28402109)
                But when such a society treats the most despised better than they treat the most valued, what does that say about how they understand value? There are millions of disenfranchised working poor who cannot get medical treatment that prisoners in jail get simply by being incarcerated. If you can advance the constitutional rights of criminals, why is it that such arguments are not made for those who are financially imprisoned?
                • by Ephemeriis (315124) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @11:08AM (#28402403)

                  But when such a society treats the most despised better than they treat the most valued, what does that say about how they understand value? There are millions of disenfranchised working poor who cannot get medical treatment that prisoners in jail get simply by being incarcerated. If you can advance the constitutional rights of criminals, why is it that such arguments are not made for those who are financially imprisoned?

                  There is no conundrum here, you just aren't following things through to their logical conclusion.

                  The fact of the matter is that we value the working poor less than those who are imprisoned for their crimes.

                  The attitude seems to be that if you're imprisoned you have no choice in the matter. You cannot care for yourself. You cannot get your own healtchare. And someone has to take care of you. We feel obligated to those we've robbed of their ability to take care of themselves.

                  But if you're out of prison, and just plain poor, it's your own damn fault. You need to get a better job or invent something cool so you earn enough money to pay for your own healthcare. And if you can't manage that? Well, that's nobody's fault but your own...

                  The imprisoned might very well be valuable members of society as soon as we let them. The poor, obviously, aren't valuable members of society because they wouldn't be poor if they were.

            • by babblefrog (1013127) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @10:20AM (#28402061)
              Given that the very best medical care is expensive, and resources are limited, what you are really saying is that if everybody can't have it, nobody should get it, right?

              Is it just medical care that gets this treatment, or do you extend this to all goods and services?

          • by cyber-vandal (148830) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @08:20AM (#28401213) Homepage

            Any medical care that Ken Lay gets would have to be the very best since he's been dead for 3 years. But I get your point ;-)

          • by Teppy (105859) *
            Assume that a perfect matched liver was available: Suppose *you* were the top liver transplant surgeon, and someone offered $50k to give up your day off, and instead perform a liver transplant on them. Would it be immoral for you to accept?
          • by drsmack1 (698392) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @08:28AM (#28401261)
            >> but I come from a country where we have socialised medicine. It is certainly not perfect

            If your country has socialized medicine; then I'm guessing that people go OUTSIDE the system (or even the country) to get the best care possible.

            This Churchill quote seems appropriate right now: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
            • yea (Score:3, Insightful)

              by unity100 (970058)

              you are GUESSING that, just like you said.

              just like how americans run away to canada.

              and therefore churchill quote is totally inappropriate.

              • Re:yea (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20, 2009 @10:21AM (#28402073)

                Er, poor Americans run to Canada, rich Canadians run to America. Not saying that there's anything wrong with the Canadian system, it's just human nature to do the best you can when your health is on the line. And if you've got tons of cash to blow, the US has got great doctors for you.

            • by Jurily (900488) <jurily@@@gmail...com> on Saturday June 20, 2009 @09:23AM (#28401629)

              This Churchill quote seems appropriate right now: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

              How about this one from Geza Hofi: "In capitalism, people exploit people. In socialism, it's the other way around."

              And no need to guess about going abroad: Hungarian politicians haven't seen a Hungarian hospital from the inside since WW2.

            • by BasilBrush (643681) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @10:19AM (#28402053)

              If your country has socialized medicine; then I'm guessing that people go OUTSIDE the system (or even the country) to get the best care possible.

              Well to save you from guessing, I'll tell you how it is in the UK. The vast majority of people use the National Health Service all the time (what you call "socialized" medicine). Some people go outside the system (private) if they can afford it and they want a nice private room rather than a ward, or to get minor procedures done at a time to suit them, rather then wait. Or if they want unnecessary work such as plastic surgery done. But if you have something SERIOUS wrong, like you've had a heart attack, or you need a liver transplant. Then the NHS is the place to be. They have the specialists and the equipment needed to give you the best care, not the private hospitals.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward

              You are plain wrong.

              I'm from Spain, where we have "socialzied healthcare". Private medicine of course exists and many people, usually richers ones, have some sort of insurance. I'm covered by both of them, and I choose the national 'socialized' healthcare usually becouse they have more experience and treat more "hard" cases that the private companies. Sure, if you go to your private company's hospital you will get inmediate atention. In socialized healthcare systems you only get that kind of atention if you

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by MobyTurbo (537363) *

              If your country has socialized medicine; then I'm guessing that people go OUTSIDE the system (or even the country) to get the best care possible.

              In case you didn't know, all countries except the US and South Africa classified by the UN as industrialized countries have socialized medicine. For some reason, I don't think that the statistics show (life expectancy, birth survival rates, etc.) that the US is the only industrialized country with decent health care.

              Nor do I think that all people who seek better health care, go to the US, or South Africa, in order to get health care that is better because the poor can't afford it. I wonder at the moderator

          • by roman_mir (125474) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @08:46AM (#28401389) Homepage Journal

            Living in Canada (where are you located), I disagree. The system does not provide best care and there should be a legal way to get extra care above what they normally provide if you pay the money.

            Think about this: if a public hospital allows a person to stay only for a few days after a surgery, why shouldn't a person with means be able to leave that place and go to a private hospital that does not depend on the public resources and stay there for any amount of time that it takes this person to recover fully or until he even simply feels like it as long as he pays? In Ontario this is generally illegal, however what would be the difference between that and simply hiring a bunch of nurses/doctors to take care of you personally in your house even (except that doing it would be so expensive that only the richest people, someone exactly like Jobs could afford it?)

            How is it even legal to prevent a professional to provide his/her services for the best payment if he wants that extra money? I am a software developer working on contracts, generally speaking I always search for the best deal I can get. Why should a doctor be denied opportunity to get the most money his abilities would allow him?

            So the only argument against a fully private system would be this: if the government subsidizes education of some doctors, then it could demand that those, who were subsidized give back at least some of their time to the public system (say 30% minimum of their time would go to public system) Of-course there is a larger problem with government subsidizing any education system - it drives the education costs up, because universities know that government is there to provide loans, so whatever the costs of education are, anyone can just get this 'mortgage' to pay for it, so there is no incentive to make education any cheaper.

            If the government stayed away from subsidizing education, the prices for it would go down and more people would be able to afford it in the first place. More doctors would graduate and that would drive their prices down so even a private health system could be affordable.

            You can probably guess I one of those evil socialist types

            - and I am not, as you can probably guess, I believe on economy my position is logical and yours is not. You would have a system that would be regulated, taxed and subsidized and would eventually collapse under its own bureaucratic cost.

            • by dunkelfalke (91624) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @09:42AM (#28401791)

              If the government stayed away from subsidizing education, the prices for it would go down and more people would be able to afford it in the first place. More doctors would graduate and that would drive their prices down so even a private health system could be affordable.

              Wrong. This is pretty much the same as saying that when the goverment wouldn't subsidise car manufacturers, everyone could afford a Porsche.

              A private education system, same as a private healthcare system, will charge for the services whatever the market can bear. That means for healthcare that the doctors will charge real shitloads of money. Just because they can - if people are seriously ill, they'll pay any cost to get healthy again. Those, who cannot afford to pay that huge sums of money would receive no healthcare - thre is no reason doctors would waste their time for the poor when they can use the time to treat wealthy patients. Everyone else would have to pray to their personal deity or to resort to traditional medicine (which is also pretty costly these days since there aren't that many places anymore where you can harvest herbs).
              Same would happen to education.

              I believe on economy my position is logical and yours is not.

              Nope, your position is illogical because it is based on beliefs. In other words, economy is a religion for you.

              What I describe are just facts. We have already had fully private education and fully private medicine. There is a good reason why 20th century has changed that.

              • by Achromatic1978 (916097) <robertNO@SPAMchromablue.net> on Saturday June 20, 2009 @12:24PM (#28402849)
                Yup. Go to a chiro, with insurance. Have a look at your hourly bill: $160. Go without insurance: $40.

                How does that work? (Bear in mind, I work in the healthcare insurance industry, so I know of what I speak). What amazes me is that people somehow think their insurance is this magical creature that makes money and pays these excesses/is a charity covering that cost.

                That money is still coming out of you, you're just put on an indirect payment plan!

                Imagine a more direct method of the same: "Well, your bill is $40. Or you can pay me $40/month for the next four months."

                Some would have you believe that the latter is a good deal, because it means, in theory, if you're not denied coverage, rescinded for some real or implied reason, etc, etc, that when you go to the emergency room for a couple of days and come home with a bill equal to many people's annual salary, you reap the benefits of insurance, forgetting that without the implied acceptance of such high rates, your hospital stay wouldn't have cost anywhere near as much in the first place.

                I used to work for a corporate law firm in Australia. They charged up to $600/hr for legal work, more when they went into court. Companies happily paid this, because legal expenses are tax deductible. The company knows they get to write it off, so the law firms can make a mint. When was the last time you heard of a law firm going bankrupt?

                Doctors are being advised to invest in MRI, LASIK. Leaving aside the interesting side effect that doctors who own or own shares in an MRI machine/practice are up to 10% more likely to refer you for an MRI, this is a fantastic investment, because of people like you and me on insurance. You can pay $1, 1.5M for an MRI machine, and see your investment paid off within a year, quite easily, and then anything beyond that is a nice skim of upwards of $500,000 a year in profit. Why? Because we, the working stiff, are paying upwards of $1,800 for an hours worth of diagnostic procedure (and again, remember, "insurance" isn't paying it. You are. Insurance is just giving you a nice payment plan).

                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by Falconhell (1289630)

                  WFT???

                  A chiro visit in Australia costs exactly the smae whether insured or not.

                  Seriously, if this happens in the US your healthcare is even more fucked up than I thought!

                  • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                    As someone who moved from Melbourne to Seattle two years ago (and now works in the healthcare industry here), "Yes! Our healthcare is even more fucked up than you thought!"
        • by frieko (855745)
          I find it hard to believe I'm putting these words together in the same sentence, but there was an interesting episode of Star Trek Voyager [wikipedia.org] on the subject.
      • by D-Cypell (446534) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @07:48AM (#28401073)

        Exactly! Add to that the fact that the surgeons simply needed to rotate Steve by 90 degrees to have all his internal organs shift to 'landscape mode' for easy access and I am sure the surgery was a breeze.

      • by ijakings (982830)
        All they did was flash him with the 3.0 firmware, then cut and pasted that liver right in there.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by sqldr (838964)

        Steve Jobs would have had an team of the very best surgeons working on him

        Nah.. they probably just downloaded the "iSurgery" app for their iPhone.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by CarpetShark (865376)

      2 Months is very fast for a recovery.

      Never underestimate the awesome power of reality distortion fields.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by tverbeek (457094)
      Recovery time is going to depend a lot on the patient's condition before the transplant, including why they needed it, so comparing one person's to another's requires taking that into account.
    • Steve Jobs probably has more money than your father and is willing to spend loads of it to stay alive. When you have the means to pay for it, you get great medical care.

      Just look at Magic Johnson. He has HIV yet has gone on for ages with a relatively normal life and it's because he's able to afford to down a bucket of the best AIDS preventative medicine.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by balou59 (692020)
      I had a liver transplant in January 2000, was out of the hospital after 6 days and back to work within 2 months, so this really depends on the person.

      Besides that, I don't think it's a good idea to transplant a cancer patient, as the immunosupression in the first year is extremely heavy and would make every existent cancer spread, as there is no natural barrier to cancer cells anymore. The outcome is probably that his pancreatic cancer will spread even faster than before and this will reduce his life expe

  • by Lifyre (960576)

    While I dislike their general philospohy towards their users and products but I think they provide an important counterpoint to Microsoft. Steve Jobs for better or worse is the guiding light for Apple. I'm sure more than just Apple's investors and employees are hoping he comes back strong and sticks around for a good long time.

    All the best Steve and good luck beating that thing you've got.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20, 2009 @07:33AM (#28400999)

    Aren't we supposed to care about the technical side of things and his ideas, but by no means about his private life?

  • Proof / Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HaloZero (610207) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `akedotorp'> on Saturday June 20, 2009 @07:35AM (#28401009) Homepage
    Unless Jobsy himself has told you this, I'm pretty sure that running this article either violates HIPPA, or is simply full of lies...

    Where did the information about a transplant come from? I hope the source was verified, and re-verified, and then re-verified again. Remember when CNN posted that Jobs had had a heart attack, but it simply turned out to be "citizen journalism" gone horribly, horribly wrong? Gotta be careful with this crap.

    Either way, all the best to The Steve.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kingrames (858416)
      Welcome to Slashdot. Enjoy your stay.
    • Re:Proof / Evidence (Score:5, Informative)

      by bkaul (1235970) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @08:33AM (#28401283)
      Running the article doesn't violate anything. It's the doctors/hospital who are restricted by HIPPA, not the press.
    • by tverbeek (457094) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @10:06AM (#28401957) Homepage
      While HIPAA (note the correct spelling) restricts employees of the hospital from divulging any of this information without Jobs' consent, there are certainly other people who could have known about the transplant, and then provided this information to the Wall Street Urinal without violating it. Friends, family, neighbors, the FedEx guy, the limo driver, Steve's certainly-overpaid hairdresser, an iStalker, the florist who delivered a bouquet of apple blossoms with a note reading "an Apple® a day keeps liver transplant rejection away", etc. are not bound by HIPAA. Neither is any newspaper or web site that subsequently publishes the info. With any of these, there might conceivably be some grounds for a privacy suit under some other statute, but HIPAA ain't it.
  • by bogaboga (793279)

    I know nobody has exact numbers but wish Mr. Jobs well. I wonder how much it cost though. Is the cost of such a procedure high to the extent that it would force an average family into bankruptcy? If bankruptcy is indeed a realistic possibility then I support some sort of government involvement in health care.

  • by kamatsu (969795) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @07:41AM (#28401045)
    Last I read, the cancer hadn't metastatized and was removed without chemo etc. Okay, fair enough, that's pretty unusual but I guess they caught it early. Can someone explain to me why they would give him a liver transplant now? I mean, having a liver transplant introduces a whole lot of health risks, and as far as I know unless his previous liver had already developed the metastatic cancer, they shouldn't replace it - wouldn't that just be throwing away a perfectly good liver, and then putting another one in, only to have it develop tumours in a few years? The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the cancer is worse than they're letting on.
    • by tverbeek (457094)
      The obvious conclusion is that the cancer had metastasized and appeared in his liver. Whenever a doctor says they got the cancer, there's always a chance that they didn't get it all. Apparently that's the case here. Hopefully they caught it early enough and got the last of it. Time will tell.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Dogtanian (588974)

      Can someone explain to me why they would give him a liver transplant now?

      Yeah; his old liver was last year's model, and a new version in a range of smart-looking colours had just come out. Jobs didn't want to risk being seen as unfashionable or behind the times.

      Also, he wants a kidney transplant as well, but the new kidneys don't work with the older model livers.

  • by davidbrit2 (775091) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @07:44AM (#28401053) Homepage

    I mean, usually you can't upgrade the components in Apple stuff very easily.

    In all seriousness, though, I wish him well. Sounds like an unpleasant ordeal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by langelgjm (860756)

      I mean, usually you can't upgrade the components in Apple stuff very easily.

      Ah, but you see, Jobs is an older model and comes with the superbly designed and easily upgradeable outrigger body. [wikipedia.org]

  • nice to see (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WormholeFiend (674934) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @07:45AM (#28401057)

    that the liver transplant wait times are not that long...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20, 2009 @07:47AM (#28401071)

    ..what happens there if you aren't insured for this treatment / not very rich? Are you just left to die?

    • by sjf (3790) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @07:56AM (#28401107)

      No, most hospitals are required by state law to treat folks without insurance for emergency care. So, by the point you are actually dying you'll get treatment. And, by that point it's only palliative.

      But, hey, at least the US doesn't have socialist health care! Those socialist fire fighters do such a terrible job putting out our houses when they're on fire, and don't get me started on those socialist training camps called public (US sense) schools.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by WindBourne (631190)
      Well, it depends. Do you have insurance that covers it. If you do not, then there is gov. insurance in medicare/medicaid. In general you get on a waiting lists. Of course, it has to match your histochemistry and size (the liver from a 10 y.o. is not going to go into a person of say 300-400 lb). BTW, my mother-in-law just had a kidney put in (here in colorado). It took 2 years. Chance are that Jobs waited 2-3 years for one.

      What is impressive is that he did not go to India. Many of the wealthy like to go to
  • But it's nice to see Slashdot becoming honest about it.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @08:03AM (#28401127) Homepage

    When I read the summary, it came across as having a transplant requires a subscription.

  • The Wall Street Journal articles have problems with lack of attribution and stated lack of verification of this info. If the story true (and I think it probably is), the authors of the articles need to elaborate.

    Immediately after the article was posted on their site, I wrote the writers and editors the following email:

    Date: Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 01:23
    Subject: Questionable standards for reporting by Wall Street Journal journalists Kane, Lublin, and Meckler
    To: Yukari Iwatani Kane , "Joann S. Lublin" , Laura Meckler
    Cc: "Robert J. Thomson" , New York Times News Department

    Dear Journalists of The Wall Street Journal,

    The two articles referred to below, published June 20, 2009 on the website of The Wall Street Journal, state controversially without attribution that Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs received a liver transplant in Tennessee approximately two months ago:

    Reported June 20, 2009 by Yukari Iwatani Kane and Joann S. Lublin, "Jobs Had Liver Transplant",
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124546193182433491.html [wsj.com]

    Reported June 20, 2009 by Laura Meckler, "Jobs's Transplant Highlights Differing Wait Times",
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124546226305633529.html [wsj.com]


    As journalists you are expected to seek reliable sources and to accompany reports of controversial facts with attribution. However, as Yukari Iwatani Kane and Joann S. Lublin state in the first article, "The specifics of Mr. Jobs's surgery couldn't be established." They further state explicit lack of verification of Job's putative surgery by spokespeople for each of the three hospitals in Tennessee designated as liver-transplant centers.

    As of ten minutes ago I could find only the following two other online articles reporting on this topic. As their sources these articles cite only The Wall Street Journal, and at that as a secondary source:

    Reported June 19, 2009 by MG Siegler, "Not Only Was Steve Jobs Sick. He Had A Liver Transplant",
    http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/19/not-only-was-steve-jobs-sick-he-had-a-liver-transplant/ [techcrunch.com]

    Reported June 19, 2009 by Peter Kavka, "Report: Steve Jobs Is Recovering From Liver Transplant, Still Coming Back to Apple",
    http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090619/report-steve-jobs-is-recovering-from-liver-transplant-still-coming-back-to-apple/ [allthingsd.com]


    Do you have primary sources of this information? Have you checked and cross checked this information? If you have evidence, have you validated its authenticity? Do you have corroboration?

    If so, please elaborate in your articles.
  • Big news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by slasho81 (455509) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @08:17AM (#28401191)
    In today's news world, the big news is that we hear about it only now and not two months ago.
  • Your immune system keeps cancer at bay -- not always -- but often. Your immune system also causes transplant rejection.

    Surely suppressing the immune system for stopping transplant rejection = massive increase in cancer aggressiveness!

    If this is true, then either steve's doctors are crazy, or the WSJ are telling porkies!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PopeRatzo (965947) *

      I hope Jobs is gonna be OK. Hepatitis C is one of the major causes of liver cancer.

      Just a reminder to all Apple users: don't forget to use protection when you go to the bathhouses.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tverbeek (457094)
      The immune system does not play a substantial or effective role in fighting cancer. It functions like the Immigration and Naturalization police, clobbering aliens who are not welcome. But cancer cells are native-born citizens who have become domestic terrorists, so Immigration has no authority to subdue them: they aren't different enough. Telling Immigration to stand down for a bit, while the National Guard goes in for a surgical strike to remove terrorists cells and replace them with a patriotic new imm
  • Steve Jobs, visionary leader of Apple Computer, has died -- and come back, better and stronger [today.com].

    "They don't call it the Jesus Phone for nothing," Jobs laughed with reporters, before eating their tasty, tasty brains.

    Jobs' new cyborg arsenal includes wifi, 3G, laser cannons, a flame thrower and a can opener, all running on Mac OS X Robosteve. Bundled applications include an enhanced hypnotic force field based on the one he uses at MacWorld keynotes. "I can't wait to try it on Bill," he said.

    Disney, in which Jobs is the single largest shareholder, remained unaffected. "Steve's just working with the way we do things here," said the disembodied computer-hosted soul of Walt Disney, who was decanted to a computer in 1966 to avoid being declared legally dead, so that copyright in his works would never, ever run out.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Sponge Bath (413667)

      "Jobs laughed with reporters, before eating their tasty, tasty brains."

      So that's how he stays so thin!
      I'm not sure that's enough for most people to survive on.

  • refurbished (Score:4, Funny)

    by Verunks (1000826) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @08:37AM (#28401337)
    now they'll sell his old liver at half the price on the apple store
  • Speaking as a doctor (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20, 2009 @09:21AM (#28401617)

    Organ transplants are, with a few exceptions, usually contraindicated in cancer patients - especially when the cause of the failure of the organ is metastasis. But I guess if you're Steve Jobs, money truly CAN buy anything. The rest of us mortals however would be allowed to die quicker.

  • by c4t3y3 (1571639) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @09:31AM (#28401681)
    The following is taken from Daring Fireball [daringfireball.net], one of the few reliable sources of Apple info on the Internet.

    The Timing of Steve Jobs's Liver Transplant [health-cares.net] I'm curious about the reported timing. The Journal story [google.com] says "about two months ago", but I heard from a bunch of sources last week at WWDC that Jobs had been seen on campus the week before - i.e. about two weeks ago. I mean, he was there walking around, giving people hell like usual. Regarding recuperating time, the Journal story has this sentence:

    Recovery from a liver transplant is relatively fast, said William Chapman, a specialist at Washington University who has no direct knowledge of Mr. Jobsâ(TM)s case.

    But six weeks doesn't sound "relatively" fast, to me. It sounds crazy fast. I don't know how authoritative it is, but here's what health-cares.net says regarding liver transplant patients:

    After discharge from the hospital, patients are seen every week (for approximately three weeks) in the outpatient clinic for an examination and monitoring of blood tests. During this time, medications are adjusted based on the levels found in your blood. After approximately one month, patients are usually seen only two to three times during the first year. Also beginning at one month, blood is checked every other week; eventually, it is checked only once a month. Most patients are encouraged to resume physical activity, including work, after three to six months, depending on their recovery. Patients may resume heavy activity, including workouts, at six months.

    So I'm thinking that if Steve Jobs had a liver transplant, it was more than "about two months" ago.

  • by Ilyon (1150115) on Saturday June 20, 2009 @11:55AM (#28402635)
    Getting a liver transplant is a long, involved, and lengthy process.

    First, you need to have good medical care and good insurance. If your doctor has been carefully monitoring your liver with CT scans every six months because he realizes you're at risk (perhaps because you have Hep B), you will have a good chance at early detection of liver cancer. If you have no such proactive care, good luck!

    Next, your doctor has to present you the option, you have to recognize its urgency, and you have to ask for the transplant, aggressively. If your doctor says, "This is not yet urgent", or "We can wait and monitor this", or if you say, "Can we just wait and see?", it might be too late by the time you recognize the danger (much like climate change and peak oil). That's because...

    It takes 6 months to process a liver transplant application, then months to years to actually receive the transplant.

    The application process has two parts: medical evaluation and financial means. The medical evaluation is a comprehensive evaluation to determine that you're a good candidate for transplant, that the cancer has not spread beyond the liver, and that you're psychologically fit for the transplant. The financial means evaluation... well, if you don't have the financial means, you do NOT get listed on the transplant list. Period. The only way to get a liver transplant without financial means is if you're an emergency case with sudden liver failure. Oh, you also need to have a designated caregiver who commits to taking time off work to take care if you, if/when necessary.

    Once the application process starts, it can take 5 months to actually get on the transplant list. If the winter holidays occur fall in this time period, make that 6 months. If they accidentally list you on the non-cancer waiting list (with lower priority than the cancer waiting list), it might be another month (total 7 months) by the time somebody catches this mistake and it gets corrected. Most likely it will be YOU who catches the mistake, because nobody else is paying attention. If YOU fail to catch this error, the patient may be on the wrong (lower priority) waiting list indefinitely.

    Once you're listed, it could take weeks to years to get the transplant. For non-cancer patients, the priority is determined strictly by a function of three blood test results: bilirubin, creatinine, and INR. As these levels go up, you develop ascites (fluid in abdomen), encephalopathy (cloudy mind), and then it gets worse. The problem is, you typically lose weight as you get sicker, and as you lose weight, the creatinine level goes DOWN, so your priority gets lower, initially! If you're lucky enough to be in Oregon or Florida, with no motorcycle helmet laws, you might get your transplant in a few months. If you're in Southern California or New York, you might be waiting a year or longer, progress to extreme illness and hospitalization, and be on the verge of death before getting the transplant. These are the patients who take 6 months to recover from the transplant. Often it takes days to weeks for the transplanted liver to start functioning. These patient have been IV fed for so long that the digestive tract is initially dysfunctional. They have to start with limited plain-cracker diets. Because their gut microbes have been ravaged, their gastric emissions are horrendous foul smelling.

    If you're a liver cancer patient (like Jobs) the good thing is, you'll probably get your transplant sooner than the non-cancer patients, because liver cancer transplant priority goes up strictly by time on waiting list. "Sooner" is relative to when you got listed. If you trusted your Kaiser doctor and didn't sense any urgency, you probably didn't apply for the transplant until it was almost too late (there are limits are tumor size for transplant). If you are well-informed and proactively asked for a transplant application, you might get your transplant before you start to feel any symptoms of a dysfunctional liver. This is probably wha

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.

Working...