Another twist to the privacy of health data question...Apple's Culture of Secrecy

I was reading an article on the NY Times website titled "Apple's Culture of Secrecy" that got me thinking about the issue of health data privacy from a perspective different than the usual issues surrounding this very controversial topic.

We all have a basic understanding that health data should be held private and it is up to the concerned person to decide when and how much of that data should ever be disclosed and to whom. That said, there are cultural differences that will also play a role in this. For example, very often in India, it seems perfectly fine to opine on someone's physical appearance when meeting them after some length of time. "Hi, you look really healthy" (meaning overweight), or "Have you lost weight?". By acknowledging this question, we are clearly disclosing more information about our health than some of us might want to but feel compelled to react in this situation.

Business in India takes this to a whole different level. It is rumored that when Dhirubhai Ambani, the visionary behind Reliance Industries, one of India's leading conglomerates, had his first stroke and was being transferred to hospital by ambulance. He is said to have told his elder son Mukesh to "buy 1 lakh shares of Reliance the next morning" before the news of his illness was out.

There are other situations where the health of public figure is fodder for speculation by the media and the public. So, the big question to my mind is:
"When are you compelled to disclose your personal health status or information, to suit the greater good of people?"

The recent controversy surrounding Steve Jobs, well known and respected CEO of Apple Inc. begs to ask exactly this question. There has been speculation that Mr. Jobs has had serious health problems in the recent past due to his gaunt appearance at a public meeting of developers a month or so ago. The NY Times article states "he is, instead, the single most indispensable chief executive on the planet.". Therefore, do the shareholders of his Company have a right to know the status of his health?

An interesting question, this, as you may tend to agree that people who have put their hard earned money into Apple Inc. would want to know the status of the CEO's health, particularly if it had taken a turn for the worse, as many of them were largely betting on him to lead them to an investment windfall. At the same time, Mr. Jobs, has his individual right to privacy of his health information. Which argument beats the other? I don't know, but I know that if I were Mr. Jobs, this question would be tougher to answer than anything else that he might have had to in his life.