My Sister’s Keeper
FRIDAY CAMPBELL
by Picoult, JodieCampbell Alexander arrives at Providence Hospital with his service dog, Judge, only to be confronted by a hostile security officer who denies them entry. Despite claiming Judge is CPR-certified for his irregular heartbeat, Campbell faces resistance. He seeks out Dr. Peter Bergen, chairman of the medical ethics board, to obtain Anna Fitzgerald’s medical records, but Bergen insists the ethics committee has only reviewed Kate Fitzgerald’s case. Campbell presses the issue, highlighting Anna’s numerous hospital visits, but Bergen dismisses the relevance, emphasizing the committee only intervenes in conflicts between physicians and patients.
The chapter shifts to a flashback where Campbell recalls a heated argument with Julia Romano, his former lover, about the Virgin Mary. Their disagreement escalates when Campbell’s locker spills condoms, revealing his reputation among peers. Julia, hurt by his lack of defense for their relationship, storms off. This memory contrasts sharply with their present encounter in the hospital elevator, where they exchange tense words. Julia, now a guardian ad litem for Anna, reveals the Fitzgerald family has gone silent, leaving the status of their lawsuit uncertain.
Campbell attempts to bridge the awkwardness with Julia, suggesting they collaborate to prepare for the upcoming hearing. Julia resists, but Campbell appeals to her sense of duty, arguing Anna’s future should outweigh their personal history. Their banter reveals lingering tension, with Julia mocking Campbell’s smooth-talking demeanor. Despite her sharp retorts, she reluctantly acknowledges the need to focus on Anna’s case, hinting at unresolved feelings between them.
The chapter underscores Campbell’s determination to advocate for Anna, even as he navigates bureaucratic hurdles and personal conflicts. His interactions with Bergen and Julia highlight the complexities of medical ethics and the emotional baggage complicating his professional responsibilities. The narrative weaves past and present, revealing Campbell’s vulnerabilities and the stakes of the legal battle ahead. The unresolved tension with Julia adds depth to his character, suggesting personal growth may be as critical as the case itself.
FAQs
1. What is the nature of Campbell Alexander’s conflict with the hospital security officer, and how does it reflect his character?
Answer:
The conflict arises when Campbell attempts to enter the hospital with his service dog, Judge, but is stopped by a security officer who insists “no dogs” are allowed. Campbell explains that Judge is CPR-certified for his irregular heartbeat, but the officer dismisses this because he isn’t blind. This interaction highlights Campbell’s assertive and somewhat combative personality—he doesn’t back down easily and is quick to justify his needs. It also underscores his reliance on Judge, suggesting a deeper vulnerability beneath his confident exterior. The scene sets the tone for his no-nonsense approach to obstacles, a trait evident throughout the chapter.2. How does Dr. Bergen’s response to Campbell’s request for Anna Fitzgerald’s medical records reveal the ethical complexities of the case?
Answer:
Dr. Bergen explains that the ethics committee only convenes when there’s a conflict between physicians and patients, implying that Anna’s procedures didn’t raise ethical flags because they were medically justified and uncontested. This reveals a systemic blind spot: the committee assumes compliance equates to ethical soundness, ignoring potential coercion or lack of informed consent, especially for a minor like Anna. Bergen’s dismissive attitude (“We don’t go looking for problems”) further underscores institutional inertia. This exchange hints at the broader moral dilemma—whether Anna’s repeated medical interventions, though technically legal, are ethically defensible given her role as a donor for her sister.3. Analyze the flashback between Campbell and Julia. What does it reveal about their past relationship and its impact on their present dynamic?
Answer:
The flashback shows a teenage Campbell making irreverent jokes about the Virgin Mary, inadvertently humiliating Julia when condoms spill from his locker. Her reaction—anger and hurt—reveals her sensitivity and his emotional immaturity at the time. Campbell’s failure to defend their relationship to peers or parents suggests he prioritized social standing over her feelings. This history explains their current tension: Julia distrusts his glibness, while Campbell’s attempts to reconnect (e.g., the coffee invitation) are tinged with guilt. Their unresolved past complicates their professional collaboration, as seen in Julia’s sharp retorts (“You oil your lips every morning”) and Campbell’s defensive yet persistent demeanor.4. How does the chapter use humor and sarcasm to develop Campbell’s voice, and what effect does this have on the narrative?
Answer:
Campbell’s sarcasm (e.g., describing the security officer as “Hitler in drag”) and witty comebacks (e.g., “Now that I want to write down”) create a sharp, engaging narrative voice. This humor serves dual purposes: it deflects vulnerability (masking his health issues and past regrets) and disarms tension, as seen during his banter with Julia. However, it also underscores his emotional avoidance—his jokes about the ethics committee (“Becoming supremely disappointed in American health care”) trivialize serious issues. The tone balances levity with underlying gravity, making his moments of sincerity (e.g., “Anna shouldn’t have a chance to [grow up]”) more impactful by contrast.5. What thematic tensions are introduced through the hospital setting and the characters’ roles within it?
Answer:
The hospital symbolizes institutional power and moral ambiguity. Campbell, as an outsider, challenges its protocols (e.g., demanding records), while figures like Dr. Bergen represent bureaucratic detachment (“We don’t go looking for problems”). Julia’s role as a guardian ad litem bridges personal and systemic stakes—she advocates for Anna but is barred from Kate’s room, highlighting patient autonomy vs. institutional control. The setting also juxtaposes health and dysfunction: Campbell’s heart condition, Kate’s critical illness, and the fractured relationships (Campbell/Julia, Anna/her family) suggest that physical and emotional “treatment” are equally fraught. This frames the central question: Who has the right to decide what’s best for a child’s body or future?
Quotes
1. “No dogs,” she orders. “This is a service dog.” “You’re not blind.” “I have an irregular heartbeat and he’s CPR certified.”
This exchange highlights the protagonist’s quick wit and introduces Judge’s role as more than just a pet—a recurring theme of unconventional solutions to life’s challenges.
2. “We don’t go looking for problems.”
Dr. Bergen’s statement encapsulates the ethical dilemma at the heart of the chapter—how institutions often avoid confronting difficult questions until forced to, mirroring society’s tendency to ignore uncomfortable truths.
3. “What do you tell them about us when you’re in the locker room?” […] “I don’t tell them anything.” […] “What do you tell your parents about us?” “I don’t,” I admitted. “Fuck you,” she said.
This flashback reveals the deep history and unresolved tension between Campbell and Julia, showing how past failures in communication continue to haunt their present interactions.
4. “Just because you and I can’t seem to grow up doesn’t mean Anna shouldn’t have a chance to.”
A pivotal moment where Campbell acknowledges their personal baggage while refocusing on their professional responsibility, demonstrating his complex character growth.
5. “You’re so glib you probably oil your lips every morning.”
Julia’s sharp retort exemplifies the chapter’s tension-filled dialogue and the combative yet charged dynamic between these two characters, revealing their history through their verbal sparring.