Please explain?

I'm curious as to why this gazillionaire's private health battle should be shared with the masses? And why not doing so is detramental.

Now if he bothers to slap some of that money down for research and development for finding a cure, then I can see that being a positive....but I'm confused how his being secret about it, is a negative....

 Reply

My knowledge isn't comprehensive, but I'm not aware of a case where privacy-influenced decisions regarding disclosure of a key man's health status has resulted in a finding of stock manipulation, or even a consent decree. Do such cases exist?

If not, then it seems to me that those in charge of interpreting law and regulations are quite properly affording massive deference to an interest we all unquestionably value: The individual interest in maintaining privacy about one's health.

Arguments in favor of overriding that interest might get some traction in the case of a constitutionally elected official -- but outside that special case, I think we can all agree that the public interest in maintaining individual privacy wins out over the public interest in short-term stock prices that gyrate in a certain preferred direction.

 Reply

I propose that when it comes to disclosing intimate details about one's health, the option of acting in a "self-serving" manner is not only defensible but an affirmative public good.

I think we'd all consider that option to be extremely valuable if the need arose in our own lives.

 Reply