Thomas Simmons Case

Ku Klux Klan member, Thomas Simons, was severely assaulted leaving him with damage that resulted in his brain no longer functioning. The Simons family was immediately consulted for donating his organs to help save lives. Thomas Simons had many healthy organs for use like his heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, pancreas, as well as his corneas and small intestine. Since Thomas Simons was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, his family would only agree to let his organs be donated under specific restraints. His organs could only be donated to white recipients per the family’s request. The Organ Procurement Organization attempted to convince the Simons family to allow Thomas’s organs to be donated to anyone who needed them, being that the organization …show more content…
Thomas Simmons organs should have either been donated without discrimination, or not donated at all. Especially given the fact that the Organ Procurement Organization is designed to be a public system and rules and regulations within the organization should not be temporarily lifted for reasons of racism and discrimination. One moral principle that was broken is the deontological theory because permitting Thomas Simons organs to only be donated to whites with the motive of racism is wrong. Another aspect of deontology or Kant’s ethics is the golden rule that states “do unto other as you would have them do unto you”. If Thomas Simons was black and a part of an anti-white discriminatory group would his family be able to request that his organs only be given to other blacks? Under the terms of discrimination, I do not believe that it is better to save some lives than no lives at all. I do not see how one can determine the life importance of one person over another based on their skin color. Yet, on the other hand if the Simons family had requested that Thomas Simons organs be donated to children first, it would no longer be violating a moral principle. I do not see making children priority as a moral issue, given that receiving healthy organs can insure them being able to make it to …show more content…
The Principle of Justice is based on equality and fairness regardless of race. When choosing to donate, it would not be fair to choose a group of people to help. Sickness, diseases, or accidents are not discriminatory, and the need for help is not limited to certain races. In modern society people are given the choice on whether they want to be an organ donor or not. By the time that choice is taken into action the person is usually not in a state where they can dictate exactly who it should go to, and even if they could decide, what makes a person a determining factor of someone else’s life? Even with organ donating being a gift I don’t think stipulations on who receives organs should be a factor at