14 DAY TRIAL // A Bloomberg piece claims that Apple's Chief Executive Officer, Steve Jobs, is considering a liver transplant due to the side effects of his treatment for pancreatic cancer. Jobs was allegedly reached by telephone, where he vehemently denied to provide further information about his health.
According to the report, “Patients with Jobs’s condition can survive for 20 years or more from the time of their original cancer diagnosis, and the surgery often gives good results,” Steven Brower, professor and chairman of surgery at Mercer University School of Medicine in Savannah, Georgia, said. “Brower hasn’t treated Jobs and doesn’t know details of his condition,” Bloomberg reports.
Brower added that liver transplant could have a positive outcome in Mr. Jobs' case, since his neuroendocrine cancer began in the pancreas. In such cases, this tumor type often spreads only to the liver and grows very slowly. “The outcome can be quite good,” he added.
“With immunosuppressive drugs, the patient can expect to have a significant, durable life expectancy.” The report goes to mention that some liver transplant patients get part of an organ from a living donor. After the operation, the livers of the donor and the recipient grow into a normal-size liver.
Bloomberg's editors called up Mr. Jobs to confirm his doctor's diagnosis. Unfortunately, Apple's CEO, who officially stated that he was taking a medical leave to get away from it all, said he wouldn't comment further on his health. “Why don’t you guys leave me alone – why is this important?” Jobs allegedly said.
But while Mr. Jobs does have the right to some degree of privacy, one can't help but question whether or not companies such as Apple have a requirement to clear up any misleading information on their CEO’s health. Stanley Sporkin, a former federal judge and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement director, argued that, while the SEC didn't require a company to disclose health information, the company still should, according to the Bloomberg piece.
“The company almost has a duty or responsibility not to let the company be run by rumors,” Sporkin said. According to the man, failing to do so may open the company up to insider trading. Simply put, informing shareholders is just good corporate governance, he concluded, the same report shows.