Search Jump: Comments
    Chapter Index
    Back to Story
    Cover of My Sister’s Keeper
    LiteraryLiterary FictionRelationshipYoung Adult

    My Sister’s Keeper

    by Picoult, Jodie
    “My Sister’s Keeper” by Jodie Picoult follows 13-year-old Anna Fitzgerald, who was conceived as a genetic match to donate organs and blood to her older sister Kate, who suffers from leukemia. When Anna is asked to donate a kidney, she sues her parents for medical emancipation, challenging the ethical boundaries of family obligation and bodily autonomy. The novel explores themes of sacrifice, moral dilemmas, and the complexities of love through multiple perspectives. Picoult’s narrative delves into the emotional and legal turmoil faced by the Fitzgerald family, raising profound questions about medical ethics and personal choice. The story is inspired by the real-life case of Anissa and Marissa Ayala.
    PreviousNext
    My Sister’s Keeper

    THURSDAY CAMPBELL

    by Picoult, Jodie

    The chap­ter opens with attor­ney Camp­bell Alexan­der arriv­ing at fam­i­ly court, where he eager­ly engages with reporters, fram­ing the case as nation­al­ly sig­nif­i­cant while sub­tly pro­mot­ing his own image. Inside, he exchanges a know­ing glance with Deputy Vern Stack­house, hav­ing pre­vi­ous­ly hint­ed about the hear­ing’s impor­tance to Stack­house­’s reporter sis­ter. The nar­ra­tive high­lights Camp­bel­l’s self-serv­ing approach to pro bono work, sug­gest­ing he thrives on media atten­tion and strate­gic manip­u­la­tion to advance his agen­da.

    In cham­bers, Camp­bell argues for a restrain­ing order against Sara Fitzger­ald, claim­ing she vio­lat­ed the judge’s order by dis­cussing the law­suit with her daugh­ter Anna. Sara admits to the con­ver­sa­tion, defend­ing her actions as a con­cerned moth­er. The guardian ad litem, Julia Romano, express­es con­cern about Anna’s con­fu­sion and oppos­es the restrain­ing order, empha­siz­ing the emo­tion­al toll of sep­a­rat­ing moth­er and daugh­ter. Judge DeSal­vo denies the motion but stern­ly warns Sara against fur­ther vio­la­tions, threat­en­ing to report her to the bar if she dis­obeys.

    The ten­sion esca­lates as Camp­bell, Sara, and Julia dis­cov­er Anna and her father have left the cour­t­house. Sara, avoid­ing the press, seeks an alter­nate exit with Juli­a’s help. Mean­while, Camp­bell attempts to evade Julia, who con­fronts him about mis­lead­ing Anna. Julia crit­i­cizes Camp­bell for treat­ing Anna like an adult client, argu­ing that the 13-year-old lacks the emo­tion­al matu­ri­ty to ful­ly grasp the con­se­quences of legal sep­a­ra­tion from her moth­er. Camp­bell reveals Anna has changed her mind about the peti­tion, but Julia insists he manip­u­lat­ed her by focus­ing only on the legal ben­e­fits with­out address­ing the famil­ial fall­out.

    The chap­ter con­cludes with Camp­bell hur­ried­ly leav­ing, his ser­vice dog Judge sig­nal­ing his stress. Juli­a’s frus­tra­tion under­scores the eth­i­cal dilem­ma of the case: bal­anc­ing legal strat­e­gy with the emo­tion­al well-being of a child caught in a high-stakes fam­i­ly con­flict. The exchange leaves unre­solved ques­tions about Camp­bel­l’s motives and Anna’s true desires, set­ting the stage for fur­ther legal and per­son­al dra­ma.

    Down­load PDF Sum­ma­ry

    FAQs

    • 1. What ethical dilemma does the narrator face in this chapter, and how does it reflect on their professional conduct?

      Answer:
      The narrator, an attorney, faces an ethical dilemma regarding self-promotion and exploiting their pro bono case for personal gain. They actively court media attention (“offer around sound bites as if they are candy”) and manipulate a deputy to ensure press coverage, while acknowledging this behavior might warrant “a special corner of Hell.” This reflects poorly on their professional conduct, as they prioritize publicity over client confidentiality and impartiality. The chapter highlights the tension between genuine advocacy and self-aggrandizement, particularly when the narrator admits there’s “probably a throne” for attorneys who capitalize on pro bono work.

      2. How does the courtroom confrontation reveal the conflicting roles Sara Fitzgerald struggles with?

      Answer:
      Sara Fitzgerald’s outburst in court (“Well, of course I did!”) exposes her inability to separate her roles as a mother and opposing counsel. While the judge had ordered her not to discuss the case with her daughter Anna, Sara justifies her actions as parental concern (“trying to get to the bottom of this”). This conflict is central to the legal dispute, as the narrator argues Sara cannot mentally separate these roles, necessitating a physical separation. The scene underscores the emotional complexity of legal cases involving family members, where personal and professional boundaries blur.

      Answer:
      Julia challenges the narrator’s approach by asserting that Anna, as a 13-year-old, lacks the emotional maturity to fully comprehend the consequences of her legal decisions. She provides examples of children misunderstanding court outcomes (e.g., wanting a perpetrator to get “another chance”) to argue Anna likely focused only on “no pressure” without grasping the reality of family separation. This critique questions the ethics of treating a minor like an “adult client” and highlights the need for guardians ad litem to interpret children’s wishes within their developmental context, not just legal frameworks.

      Answer:
      Judge DeSalvo denies the restraining order but issues a stern warning to Sara, demonstrating his attempt to balance strict legal procedure (“Do not bother me again until Monday”) with compassion for the family’s dynamics. He acknowledges Sara’s violation but prioritizes keeping the family together, urging her to hire independent counsel instead of imposing punitive measures. His remark that “there is more to this case than the letter of the law” reflects judicial discretion in emotionally charged cases, where rigid adherence to rules might cause more harm than good.

      5. How does the narrator’s interaction with Judge (the dog) serve as a metaphor for their professional behavior?

      Answer:
      The dog’s actions—biting the narrator’s expensive suit and whining—mirror the narrator’s own unruly conduct. Just as Judge tugs at the leash and damages the Armani suit (a symbol of the narrator’s carefully crafted image), the narrator’s professional facade is undermined by their manipulative tactics and ethical compromises. The parallel suggests the narrator’s ambition is as difficult to control as the dog, with both causing unintended consequences. This subtle metaphor critiques the narrator’s lack of self-awareness despite their polished exterior.

    Quotes

    • 1. “In that special corner of Hell, there’s probably a throne for those of us who try to capitalize off our pro bono work.”

      This sardonic reflection highlights the protagonist’s self-awareness about the moral compromises attorneys sometimes make—using altruistic cases for personal gain while acknowledging the ethical hypocrisy.

      2. “Mr. Alexander, there is more to this case than the letter of the law.”

      Judge DeSalvo’s rebuke underscores the central tension between legal technicalities and human relationships, emphasizing that the case involves familial bonds beyond mere courtroom procedure.

      3. “She never heard separation.”

      Julia’s critique reveals the disconnect between legal solutions and a child’s emotional comprehension, arguing that Anna (the minor client) focused on immediate relief from pressure without grasping the long-term consequences of dividing her family.

      4. “You can’t expect Anna to be like a normal adult client. She doesn’t have the emotional capability to make decisions independent of her home situation.”

      This quote crystallizes the chapter’s ethical dilemma: whether a child can truly consent to legal actions that oppose her parents’ wishes, given developmental limitations and familial influence.

      5. “All she heard, when you talked, were the words no pressure.”

      A poignant observation about how children (and clients) may fixate on selective phrases while missing broader implications, exposing the challenges of communication in high-stakes legal and familial conflicts.

    Quotes

    1. “In that special corner of Hell, there’s probably a throne for those of us who try to capitalize off our pro bono work.”

    This sardonic reflection highlights the protagonist’s self-awareness about the moral compromises attorneys sometimes make—using altruistic cases for personal gain while acknowledging the ethical hypocrisy.

    2. “Mr. Alexander, there is more to this case than the letter of the law.”

    Judge DeSalvo’s rebuke underscores the central tension between legal technicalities and human relationships, emphasizing that the case involves familial bonds beyond mere courtroom procedure.

    3. “She never heard separation.”

    Julia’s critique reveals the disconnect between legal solutions and a child’s emotional comprehension, arguing that Anna (the minor client) focused on immediate relief from pressure without grasping the long-term consequences of dividing her family.

    4. “You can’t expect Anna to be like a normal adult client. She doesn’t have the emotional capability to make decisions independent of her home situation.”

    This quote crystallizes the chapter’s ethical dilemma: whether a child can truly consent to legal actions that oppose her parents’ wishes, given developmental limitations and familial influence.

    5. “All she heard, when you talked, were the words no pressure.”

    A poignant observation about how children (and clients) may fixate on selective phrases while missing broader implications, exposing the challenges of communication in high-stakes legal and familial conflicts.

    FAQs

    1. What ethical dilemma does the narrator face in this chapter, and how does it reflect on their professional conduct?

    Answer:
    The narrator, an attorney, faces an ethical dilemma regarding self-promotion and exploiting their pro bono case for personal gain. They actively court media attention (“offer around sound bites as if they are candy”) and manipulate a deputy to ensure press coverage, while acknowledging this behavior might warrant “a special corner of Hell.” This reflects poorly on their professional conduct, as they prioritize publicity over client confidentiality and impartiality. The chapter highlights the tension between genuine advocacy and self-aggrandizement, particularly when the narrator admits there’s “probably a throne” for attorneys who capitalize on pro bono work.

    2. How does the courtroom confrontation reveal the conflicting roles Sara Fitzgerald struggles with?

    Answer:
    Sara Fitzgerald’s outburst in court (“Well, of course I did!”) exposes her inability to separate her roles as a mother and opposing counsel. While the judge had ordered her not to discuss the case with her daughter Anna, Sara justifies her actions as parental concern (“trying to get to the bottom of this”). This conflict is central to the legal dispute, as the narrator argues Sara cannot mentally separate these roles, necessitating a physical separation. The scene underscores the emotional complexity of legal cases involving family members, where personal and professional boundaries blur.

    Answer:
    Julia challenges the narrator’s approach by asserting that Anna, as a 13-year-old, lacks the emotional maturity to fully comprehend the consequences of her legal decisions. She provides examples of children misunderstanding court outcomes (e.g., wanting a perpetrator to get “another chance”) to argue Anna likely focused only on “no pressure” without grasping the reality of family separation. This critique questions the ethics of treating a minor like an “adult client” and highlights the need for guardians ad litem to interpret children’s wishes within their developmental context, not just legal frameworks.

    Answer:
    Judge DeSalvo denies the restraining order but issues a stern warning to Sara, demonstrating his attempt to balance strict legal procedure (“Do not bother me again until Monday”) with compassion for the family’s dynamics. He acknowledges Sara’s violation but prioritizes keeping the family together, urging her to hire independent counsel instead of imposing punitive measures. His remark that “there is more to this case than the letter of the law” reflects judicial discretion in emotionally charged cases, where rigid adherence to rules might cause more harm than good.

    5. How does the narrator’s interaction with Judge (the dog) serve as a metaphor for their professional behavior?

    Answer:
    The dog’s actions—biting the narrator’s expensive suit and whining—mirror the narrator’s own unruly conduct. Just as Judge tugs at the leash and damages the Armani suit (a symbol of the narrator’s carefully crafted image), the narrator’s professional facade is undermined by their manipulative tactics and ethical compromises. The parallel suggests the narrator’s ambition is as difficult to control as the dog, with both causing unintended consequences. This subtle metaphor critiques the narrator’s lack of self-awareness despite their polished exterior.

    Note