Biographer: Jobs refused early and potentially life-saving surgery

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/20/60minutes/main20123269.shtml

126 108 15 years ago

I found this interesting too: "he saw Apple staffers turn into "bizarro people" by the riches the Apple stock offering created. Isaacson says Jobs vowed never to let his wealth change him."

I wonder what he'll consider to be bizarro.

adamjernst• 15 years ago

I also wonder if that's Apple the first time (IPO) or the second time (when the stock surged so much).

MichaelApproved4• 15 years ago

It's probably the first time since, by the second time, he would've already been very rich and, by then, money would've changed him, if it was going to at all.

lawnchair_larry• 15 years ago

I found the previous sentence more interesting.

"Another aspect of Jobs' character revealed was his disdain for conspicuous consumption."

I definitely see some incongruency there!

forensic• 15 years ago

Why? Did jobs show off his Ferrari, did he wear $10,000 bespoke suits? Did he buy anything at all that demonstrates status and wealth?

Jobs was NOT a conspicuous consumer. At all. All of his purchases were justified based on utility - albeit as someone who appreciates art, he considered beauty to be a utility. Psychologists like Maslow would agree with that.

Beauty leads to good feelings as surely as food and shelter do. He bought stuff for himself, not to show off.

mattgreenrocks• 15 years ago

Are you referring to the perception of Apple as a luxury brand?

alanfalcon2• 15 years ago

I've always wondered about Steve's decision to severely limit stock distribution at Pixar when it had its IPO. What he did was apparently legal, but many staffers there felt like they were treated unfairly. A theory I've been considering is that Steve did it to avoid changing the people who made Pixar what it was[1]. I mean, Steve certainly didn't seem like he cared about having the money, except maybe to say "told you so" to all those who doubted him after his removal from Apple. Just something that seems to fit with the facts that I'm aware of.

[1] Of course, John Lasseter, for one, ended up with a load of money and nobody could argue that he changed. He just went from collecting toy train sets to having actual train sets installed in his backyard.

0x12• 15 years ago

When you work with people you could at least respect their right to make their own mistakes and to give them the benefit of the doubt.

gamble• 15 years ago

Didn't he do the same thing during Apple's IPO? I was under the impression that Apple employees only received stock because Woz voluntarily gave up some of his own to form an employee pool.

It's this tight-fisted aspect of Jobs that makes it difficult for me to appreciate him on a non-professional level.

rickmode• 15 years ago

Side comment: The mobile version of that link was exceptionally painful. A short article was split to 5 pages. Wow.

Toddward• 15 years ago

CBS's mobile site is atrocious. Their online content is often riddled with poor grammar and typos as well. I consider CBS to be a premier journalistic institution, but their website makes them look like a high school newspaper. It's too bad, really.

palish2• 15 years ago

So click "next" 4 times. It was annoying, but not a big deal...

lukeschlather• 15 years ago

In actual usage, it can often end up being significantly more than 4 times, especially in mobile where you might end up going through a tunnel, or leaving cell reception entirely before you finish the article.

edoloughlin• 15 years ago

There is a 'view full story' button at the bottom that gives you a single page.

twainer2• 15 years ago

Maybe there is more to the actual story but the article provides zero support to the headline as per the the surgery being 'life-saving'. It is even referenced as a 'stupid decision' to have put it off.

Pancreatic cancer has a dismal 5-yr survival rate - much less a 'cure' rate. This feels like a tabloid-y headline given the apparent lack of reality behind that statement.

gabyar• 15 years ago

Steve Jobs had an extremely rare form of pancreatic cancer that has a very good 5-yr survival rate if caught and treated early. The article is likely accurate.

twainer2• 15 years ago

Thanks to all for the clarification.

acqq• 15 years ago

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/...

"Jobs sought to assure colleagues that he was not suffering from a more common -- and more deadly -- cancer of the pancreas."

Jobs: "I had a very rare form of pancreatic cancer called an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor, which represents about 1 percent of the total cases of pancreatic cancer diagnosed each year, and can be cured by surgical removal if diagnosed in time (mine was)."

If he really had an "islet cell neuroendocrine tumor" he really had the chance to live much longer than he lived, had he accepted the operation earlier. Note he also didn't have to lie in "mine was." It was diagnosed in time, but he waited with the operation the nine months.

gvb• 15 years ago

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pancreatic-...

Jobs had a rare form of the cancer, known as neuroendocrine cancer, which grows more slowly and is easier to treat, explains Leonard Saltz, acting chief of the gastrointestinal oncology service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. "Survival for many years or even decades with endocrine cancer is not surprising." For that type, the sort that Jobs had, "survival is measured in years, as opposed to pancreatic cancer, which is measured in months."

ary2• 15 years ago

Surely I can't be the only person that wants to just read the book without having Isaacson spill all the beans before my copy comes in the mail. With each one of these excerpts he teases I lose more and more respect for the man. He's riding this thing pretty high and it's starting to be in bad taste.

This is already one of the most anticipated biographies ever. There's not really any need to seek more attention.

MichaelApproved4• 15 years ago

When you're selling a product, there's always the need to seek more attention. We all cared about Steve but this book is a product that is intended to be sold.

pixelcloud• 15 years ago

It's a biography about steve jobs. Im pretty sure there will be no issues with sales.

alanfalcon2• 15 years ago

It's not exactly fair to put that on the author. Authors have publishers and it's my understanding that publishers require publicity. It's in the contract. Maybe Walter could try to take a moral stand, but I'm not going to blame him for not rocking the boat here.

Anyway, I've been able to relate some of the book excerpts to friends who previously weren't planning to read the book but now plan to. And as for this 60 minutes interview, I'm truly looking forward to hearing some of the excerpts in Jobs' own words on tape, which isn't something that could be included in the book anyway.

ary2• 15 years ago

To be fair I agree with the notion of publisher driven publicity. Perhaps he's obligated.

I suppose my real problem is that the contents of the book are being pieced out to the media before it is available. From my past reading about Jobs this kind of frenzy wouldn't seem to suit his tastes, and you can be damn sure he'd be pissed about information leaking prior to release. I stand by the "bad taste" statement as there is strong evidence that the subject of Isaacson's work wouldn't appreciate what he's doing.

FluidDjango• 15 years ago

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Isaacson is "seeking more attention."

I think the attention-people (media) are begging for his early words and competing intensely for his time/words. The publisher may also have some stipulation in Isaacson's contract about how available he is to make himself to interviews with media outlets. Not saying I have evidence that's the way it's going down - just that such factors are at least as arguable as a hypothesis that Isaacson is an attention-monger.

jm4• 15 years ago

Lose respect? Cut him some slack. He has worked hard on the biography and is promoting it ahead of release. It's what people do prior to the release of a book, movie, startup, etc. Should he be hiding out under a rock or something? It's on you to avoid articles about the book if you think they will spoil your reading experience.

danso• 15 years ago

Um, authors going on tours shortly before and after the publication of their books is a pretty age-old tradition. In fact, it may be something mandated in his contract. And guess what, not everyone is you and not everyone was so interested in Jobs that they pre-ordered the book.

shn• 15 years ago

What puzzles me the most is why above (ary's) comment is down voted.

kno2• 15 years ago

I don't think his decision to refuse surgery was a 'stupid decision', he was just being human. Steve's success in tech should not make him in the eyes of people be super human. Even in tech, successful people make lot of mistakes; history just records successes.

hugh39• 15 years ago

I don't think his decision to refuse surgery was a 'stupid decision', he was just being human.

I'm afraid I don't see the distinction between "being human" and "making stupid decisions".

kno2• 15 years ago

In the context of Kroft asking "how such an intelligent man could make such a seemingly stupid decision", human are naturally afraid of surgery, no want want their body open unless they have no choice; Steve too.

bh422223• 15 years ago

I recall Stephen Fry's great comments on Steve Job's "Apple stands at the intersection of technology and the liberal arts." statement.

But it has always bothered me that the age of reason also means the age when the scientific principle and liberal arts not only split but often end up with an "us vs. them" relationship.

This may be one of the least coherent and strangest things I've ever tried to express on the Internet. But I suspect that if we as a civilization were not capable of making a distinction between the hard sciences and the liberal arts, then Steve Jobs would have sought early medical treatment and would be alive today and for many years more.

Allow me to try and explain. The leading smart people used to be expected to know both the "science" of the day and the arts.

But then we get the age of reason and people start to specialize in one or the other, but rarely both. And we do end up with two separate and often defined against each other areas of knowledge.

Does this make sense? Just google image search for Millau Viaduct and tell me that product of engineering isn't also art.

I think the world has lost something by this split. I think engineering and science have lost a bit to. But I also suspect the liberal arts have lost a lot by not requiring a thorough knowledge of the hard science as a foundation.

Hell, I wish doctors were required to learn and know A LOT more math and statistics.

Somewhat ironically math is still considered an art at our universities.

But by not requiring a deep, and I mean deep knowledge of hard science for any liberal arts degree, our great institutions have created an artificial separation between learned people.

And there's also this distinct sense of mystique, an accidentally created legend about non-science "knowledge". This sense that the demon haunted world contains nuggets of powerful knowledge which would be evaporated if the light of the candle that is science would shine on them.

This mythical belief plagues society in surprising ways.

I think Steve Jobs decision to first try "alternative medicine" is party because of this.

And while every typical western (North America and Europe) university has "core" requirements, I think that's a joke. I think if instead everyone had to learn an almost equal share of hard science and liberal arts for any degree, then we'd have a better civilization.

asmithmd12• 15 years ago

Jobs may not have acted irrationally. Have you looked into the procedure that he needed? It is not a tonsilectomy. Here is the latest I found about the surgery:

"Over the last 15 years major pancreatic centers in the United States have developed excellent results for the Whipple surgery. In almost all the major centers the death rate from this surgery is now less than 5%."

That is a 1 in 20 chance of dying on the operating table - makes base jumping seem safe.

algorithms• 15 years ago

Which is still a much better chance than trying to defeat the cancer with alternative medicine...

Fliko2• 15 years ago

Rationality says that this is a pretty good chance, infinitely better if you include the probability of dying from cancer.

kooshball• 15 years ago

> In almost all the major centers the death rate from this surgery is now less than 5%.

That implies the worst major centers have a maximum of 5% death rate. Steve Jobs would certainly go to one of the best hospitals, which I assume would have a much lower rate.

outworlder• 15 years ago

Seriously, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_procedure. If you are a visual learner, check the illustration here: http://www.patientedu.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/PrintOnly.aspx...

"A Whipple involves removing the head of the pancreas, the duodenum, the common bile duct, the gallbladder, and often part of the stomach (see illustration). Surgeons then seal off the end of the small intestine and reattach what's left of the bile duct, pancreas (body and tail), and stomach."

It sounds like something Dr. Frankenstein would do.

It is a major rearranging of your guts, with potentially severe dietary restrictions for life.

dextorious6• 15 years ago

Yes, as opposed to 20/20 chances of dying of the same cancer outside the operating table.

zallarak• 15 years ago

I could only care slightly less for Steve Jobs, but this comment was an excellent read. lol @ doctors needing to know more stats, so true.

"But by not requiring a deep, and I mean deep knowledge of hard science for any liberal arts degree, our great institutions have created an artificial separation between learned people."

But I think it goes both ways; I'd like to see more hard scientists with a strong background in the liberal arts.

Reminds me of how Oxford (it might still do so) calls their Physics degree/certification a degree in Natural Philosophy.

paganel2• 15 years ago

> But I think it goes both ways; I'd like to see more hard scientists with a strong background in the liberal arts.

Exactly, I actually kind of have a little bit of sympathy for a guy like Oppenheimer that cited John Donne and the Bhagavad Gita after the first nuclear test (even though even the thought of nuclear bombs almost makes me sick to my stomach), but I suspect that today's scientists are not that versed in "liberal arts".

aheilbut2• 15 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

bh422223• 15 years ago

Well I'll be darned.

I don't think I've ever seen this, but maybe I did and forgot it wasn't my idea. So I fully admit I've never had an 100% original thought.

dorian-graph• 15 years ago

I find it dangerously bizarre and stupid when people try to separate science, art and physical.

A talk I listened to a few weeks ago that was delivered at BYU (Meaning some of it is spoken in a religious context) called "Why Scientists Should Read Shakespeare and Why Humanists Should Understand Einstein" covered this same/similar principle.

jellicle• 15 years ago

> But I also suspect the liberal arts have lost a lot by not requiring a thorough knowledge of the hard science as a foundation.

Okay, but how? 10-year Bachelor's degrees? Part of the reason why the world is getting more specialized is that there is more knowledge out there to be known. A thorough knowledge of the hard sciences is not something you can squeeze into a semester.

jmonegro• 15 years ago

Exactly. Cramming such amounts of knowledge into every individual is terribly inefficient.

acabal• 15 years ago

I was extremely surprised to read that the guy in charge of a company that almost exclusively produces highly expensive 1st-world gadgetry was himself disdainful of conspicuous consumption.

hugh39• 15 years ago

Aw c'mon, Apple products don't count as "conspicuous consumption". They're fairly small and unobtrusive. Sure, they're a bit self-marketing (white earphones and big illuminated Apple logos on the back of your laptop) but that's not conspicuous consumption.

Gucci is conspicuous consumption. Bugatti is conspicuous consumption. Diamonds in your teeth is conspicuous consumption. Personal electronics are just plain ol' regular consumption.

borism3• 15 years ago

seriously? even if those personal electronics are priced at a hefty premium over their counterparts?

veyron• 15 years ago

The same arguments about how apple products are not conspicuous consumption can be applied to gucci and bugatti.

If you get a real pair of gucci shoes from the store (not from the department stores), you really feel like you are walking on air, and you can walk for miles in these dress shoes without forming boils on your feet.

I don't have a bugatti yet :P But BMW and porsches drive effortlessly and brake effectively, which really help when a taxi cab tries to cut you off.

Now, tying this back to apple, the macbook airs are lighter than most netbooks yet still perform better than many monster dell laptops. It's somewhat nonsensical to try to argue that apple products aren't as lavish as gucci or bugatti.

glhaynes2• 15 years ago

There's a difference between consumption and conspicuous consumption.

jessriedel2• 15 years ago

True, but Apple products have strong aspects of both. They make some great and highly useful stuff, but there is truth in the jokes about people not buying the 4GS because other people can't tell it's better the new model. Look also at the Apple commercials, which are chock full the message that Apple products are high status. Hell, the word chosen from the dictionary to advertise the iPad is "erudite" while classical music plays in the background.

powertower• 15 years ago

And if Jobs cured his cancer they would be saying how much of a smart man he was to try this alternative cure.

It's easy to pretent you have 20/20 hindsight on other peoples lives.

ceejayoz2• 15 years ago

> And if Jobs cured his cancer they would be saying how much of a smart man he was to try this alternative cure.

Not really. "Spontaneous remission is rare but it happens, lucky man!" would be the far more likely response.

alatkins• 15 years ago

There was also a detailed answer related to this a few days ago on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Steve-Jobs/Why-did-Steve-Jobs-choose-no...

EDIT: Please see the link to the answer comment below, which I hadn't seen until now. As always, a grain of salt and all that...

pella• 15 years ago

http://www.quora.com/Steve-Jobs/Why-did-Steve-Jobs-choose-no...

itsnotvalid• 15 years ago

I thought a much detailed explanation was found in another article that was posted to HN earlier this month [1].

The article referred to a 2008 blog post about that.

---

[1] http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to... and HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3080176

tremendo• 15 years ago

I really dislike all these after-the-fact rationalizations and second-guessing, and wish we could simply let the man rest in peace.

That said, for those interested, an actually well reasoned and knowledgeable piece on the subject comes from Science Based Medicine: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-death-of-s...

Some quotes:

"Did Jobs significantly decrease his chance of surviving his cancer by waiting nine months to undergo surgery? It seems like a no-brainer, but it turns out that that’s actually a very tough question to answer.

... So, is it possible, even likely, that Jobs compromised his chances of survival? Yes. Is it definite that he did? No, it’s not... In fact, based on statistics alone, it’s unlikely that a mere nine months took Jobs “from the high end to the low end of the survival rate,”

Now, let's hope this thread dies instead.

jholman• 15 years ago

I just need to mention that tremendo's link to sciencebasedmedicine contains a MUCH higher quality of commentary than the half-dozen other articles I've read on the subject. I know an upvote ought to be enough, but it didn't seem so.

MichaelApproved4• 15 years ago

I'm sure he's resting just fine. This is a biography that is for us to contemplate and discuss. It's quoting his own words.

Edit: removed "authorized" from biography since I don't know for sure.

Flenser• 15 years ago

You could have left authorized in. Walter Isaacson was his official biographer.

tripzilch• 15 years ago

This was also discussed in this blog post, shortly after his death:

http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to...

CamperBob• 15 years ago

A nicely written article. However, this point:

   "In retrospect, we can now tell that Jobs clearly had 
   a tumor that was unusually aggressive for an insulinoma."

... seems to undermine the author's own argument that Jobs's nine months of ineffective dieting and dithering was not necessarily a problem. Was it an aggressive tumor, or not? If so, then the early CAT scan was a lottery win, and it was incredible that Jobs failed to cash in the winning ticket. If not, then sure, maybe nine months more or less didn't matter.

As one of the commenters emphasizes, what's truly incredible is that he even considered waiting nine months before seeking state-of-the-art treatment. An intellectual environment where smart people make decisions like that is not healthy for any of us. That's the real reason why we should fight woo where we find it, as if it were a cancer in itself.

b0rsuk• 15 years ago

I think Steve Jobs acted stupid.

"The first 90 percent of the task takes 10 percent of the time. The last 10 percent takes the other 90 percent."

Do you see where I'm going ? If you believe there's some truth in this saying (quote, murphy law, whatever it is) then you should fix problems as early as possible. Granted, you don't always have time for that, and this saying applies mostly to such situations. Software projects, for example. But if you have an opportunity to fix a complicated problem/task early, don't procrastinate. There are often unexpected complications. Solve them early. If you start earlier, the chance you into the deadline is smaller.

I think it's perfectly possible that Steve Jobs acted brilliant in some situations and plain stupid in this case. There are no 100% brilliant and 100% stupid people. It's not binary, a smart person is not immune to stupid actions.

http://www.searchlores.org/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidit...

Biographer: Jobs refused early and potentially life-saving surgery

Related Stories