

Steve Jobs' liver transplant: Did he game the system? - mcknz
http://www.slate.com/id/2281668/

======
ryandvm
Gaming the system implies he did something most people wouldn't do. I don't
think that's the case. Does being rich give you a better shot at a new liver?
Yes. Would most people take advantage of their wealth to lengthen their life?
Yes.

I would like to feel high and mighty about this, but I can't. If I had Jobs'
money, you can be sure I'd be getting myself on as many lists as I could too.

~~~
Kylekramer
I disagree that gaming the system implies most people wouldn't do it. It is
just manipulating the rules in place in a way to give yourself an advantage.
Basically, following the letter but breaking the spirit of the law. Tons of
people do that everyday. So yes, Steve gamed the system. But I don't begrudge
him for it. Gaming systems for personal gain is the hacker way, honestly.

~~~
zalew
I wonder how these comments would look like if instead of Jobs it was about
some Goldman Sachs exec.

 _(downvotes for this comment, here they come)_

~~~
jokermatt999
<meta> Please don't complain about possibly being downvoted. It ruins
otherwise good posts. You had an insightful post that people would have modded
up anyway. </meta>

Indeed, it's a lot easier to justify this as "fair" when it's someone you
like. I admit that I'd have a harder time defending the GS exec, but I don't
see how what they did is against the rules. It may not be "fair" because
poorer people don't have that opportunity, but it's still legal. The focus
should be less on fair/unfair and more on fixing the current broken system in
which many people die.

------
dansingerman
I fully support anyone who puts the time, effort and resources into gaming any
system to their own advantage.

If people are unhappy with the outcome, blame the system, not the individual.

If he bribed someone that would be a very different matter. But he didn't, and
there is no suggestion that he did.

~~~
cpeterso
Don't hate the player; hate the game.

------
smoody
_To all those people thinking that gaming the system this way is fine and
they'd do it_ : Let's not say it's you with a cancerous liver, let's say it's
your mom, child, or sibling. and they're near death. And let's not say that
they'd get a liver by gaming the system, but let's say instead that the doctor
just provided you with the news that your loved one will not be getting a
liver in time because someone wealthy cut in line and that your
mom/child/brother will not live long enough to get a transplant. NOW how do
you feel about gaming the system?

~~~
aikinai
From the perspective of one liver or one jurisdiction, he didn't "cut in
line;" he was just one more person on the waitlist and they followed their
standard procedures for deciding who gets that one liver in that one
jurisdiction. If he happened to live in Tennessee, he would have gotten that
liver even if it wasn't wealthy.

He just increased his chances across the board by putting himself on waitlists
everywhere. Of course, that is still "gaming the system," and I can see why it
would bother people, but there's no victim.

------
xcvd
This article has been taken down?

Even if Apple has muscled in, Slate must not have any strength in their
convictions/gossiping.

------
ary
Short answer: Yes.

And so would everyone else with access to his kind of resources. Should he
have done the fair thing and died?

------
curiousfiddler
Dude, he's unwell. Seriously, people "can" fall sick and when they do, they
need good wishes! PHEW!!!

------
imkevingao
I don't like systems and I dislike rules. I would definitely bend rules for
people like Steve Jobs. This guy is an amazing, one of the most influential
and most competent CEO in Silicon Valley for almost two and half decades. When
the king of Silicon Valley needs a new liver, he should get one. No questions
asked.

------
timtim
It just shows how much that health (insurance) system is in need of repair.

~~~
philwelch
Health insurance isn't the issue here. There's an absolute scarcity of donor
organs, which necessarily means that some people who need a donor organ won't
get one. Changing how we pay for medical treatment isn't going to solve that
problem, unless some of that money somehow goes to organ donors, which is an
idea that makes everyone really uncomfortable.

~~~
ac132
I vote in favor of selling your organs upon death. It's not a bad way to pay
for the funeral. :-)

------
Rhymenocerus
there has to be some "mac4life"er out there willing to sacrifice his liver for
"the greater good", and save the master-of-all-things

