over 18s venue only
No. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, Jobs’ use of his wealth to be listed in multiple areas led to a fairer distribution of livers than would have occurred otherwise.
In the US, all patients on the liver transplant list are assigned a score (based on objective medical criteria) called a MELD which essentially indicates how much they need a transplant at a given time. A patient with a score of 40 will soon die without a transplant, whereas one with a score of 10 can wait a while.
In what most people would consider to be a perfectly fair system, livers would be distributed based solely on medical need, so people with higher scores would always get preference over people with lower scores.
However, transplants are managed regionally, not nationally, and some regions have a relatively greater supply of donors than needy recipients. Thus, someone in Florida can get a transplant with a MELD of just 18, while someone in California ends up waiting until they have reached a score of 30. California recipients remain sick for longer and have worse post-transplant outcomes, simply because of the arbitrary factor that they live in a different state.
Registering on a hospital’s transplant list requires an expensive series of tests, and Medicare and most insurance only cover listing with one hospital. However, wealthy people like Jobs can pay to be listed at multiple hospitals in multiple regions.
Jobs is still only allowed to receive a transplant if he is the sickest eligible person in a given region where he is listed. In his case, he ended up receiving a transplant in Tennessee, one of the states with a relatively higher supply of organs than California. The impact of this was likely that someone in Tennessee with a score of 20 had to wait a bit longer to receive a transplant, while someone else in California besides Jobs with a score of 30+ was able to receive a transplant sooner.
The argument that Jobs’ actions were unethical stems from the assumption that they gave him an unfair advantage over other Californians. However, his actions actually helped everyone else on the California list (because he was no longer ahead of them), and just put him on the same footing as someone in Tennessee.
His use of his wealth helped correct an inefficiency in the system, and led to livers being allocated based on medical need instead of geography. Until the government corrects this problem, all wealthy people will help themselves and the system as a whole by paying for multiple listings
Jobs’ experience resulted in a greater universal good: passage of legislation in California requiring drivers in California to make a choice about their organ donation preferences.http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity…
His actions will undoubtedly improve the prospects for patients on organ transplant lists and save more lives.
- All American Rejects – Move Along – one of the best music videos I have seen in a while, even though it has not-very-good moments of ‘band playing amongst crowd’.
Listening Room is a website for listening to music with your friends. Anyone in a room can play mp3s from their computer, and everyone hears the same thing at the same time.
- Sifteo (via)
- Soap Flakes (via) – This is a solution to ‘I love soap bars, but using soap bars results in a bathroom covered in scum’.
- 1/100 architectural paper model set no.1 at upon a fold (via)
- Who’s afraid of the Verizon iPhone? – Do you ever feel like someone has gone into your brain, taken whatever you’ve thought about and expressed it more eloquently than you ever could?
Sure, Android has moved a lot of volume. But the platform’s various devices seem to lack most of the passionate customer demand that iPhones have always had. Nobody’s lining up the night before to buy them. Even the gadget blogs have a hard time feigning enthusiasm for this week’s hot Android phone because they still haven’t taken the shrinkwrap off of last week’s.
Whenever I’ve overheard conversations about smartphones in real life, by “normal people” (not geeks like us), it has always been clear that the true battle happening in the U.S. phone market wasn’t iPhone versus Android, but iPhone versus Verizon.
The decision that people were discussing wasn’t “Do I get an iPhone or an Android whatever?”
It was always “Do I get an iPhone or do I stay on Verizon?”
I get the feeling that very few people except anti-Apple geeks really care about Android itself. The buying decision for most seemed to be, “I’m on Verizon and don’t want to switch, so which of the phones in the Verizon store looks best? They say this one is just as good as an iPhone. I guess I’ll get that.”
One effect I expect to start immediately: developers of popular iPhone apps are going to feel a lot less pressure to write Android versions if it becomes apparent, or if we all just speculate in the same way, that Android isn’t in fact going to take any more U.S. marketshare away from Apple and is likely to give back some of what they took over the last year. Android’s marketshare may have just peaked.