Keep your beta off my body

Jump to Comments

Drudge picked this up from Financial Times a couple days ago. He called it “The Jobs Question” but the title of the article is Do investors have the right to know about a CEO’s illness? It presents three ethical questions: “To what extent should any chief executive feel obliged to divulge health details to investors? Is it simply a private matter? And what is the best response when such questions are raised?”

The rest of the article is short responses to these questions from experts of different stripes. The consensus was that it is appropriate to waive privacy rights, in many circumstances. Though it may be legal to follow a policy that requires or encourages disclosure, is it really justifiable?

If a CEO cannot perform job functions for whatever reason, of course he or she should step down. Of course stakeholders should be informed of changes in management. However, privacy with regard to medical history/status for civilians would seem to be well worn territory. The opinions expressed in the article are all over the place as to what should be taken into account when considering whether to disclose CEO health issues, the most frightening one being the link between CEO health and share price. My own answers to the questions in the quote:

To what extent should any chief executive feel obliged to divulge health details to investors?

“feel obliged” ? Not at all.

Is it simply a private matter?

Yes.

What is the best response when such questions are raised?

If a public company’s share value were known to be so dependent on the health of the CEO, that in itself should demonstrate fragility severe enough to negatively impact share price.

1 Comment

Filed under News, ethics

Tags: privacy