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

    MONDAY CAMPBELL

    by Picoult, Jodie

    The chap­ter opens with a tense court­room scene where the nar­ra­tor, a lawyer, express­es frus­tra­tion with doc­tors who resent being sub­poe­naed. Dr. Chance, the wit­ness, is vis­i­bly impa­tient, eager to return to his dying patient, Kate Fitzger­ald. The lawyer delib­er­ate­ly pro­longs the ques­tion­ing, high­light­ing the doc­tor’s dis­com­fort. The stakes are high, as Kate’s sur­vival depends on med­ical dona­tions from her younger sis­ter, Anna, who sits radi­at­ing ten­sion beside the nar­ra­tor. The dynam­ic sets the stage for a con­fronta­tion about the ethics of using one child to save anoth­er.

    Dr. Chance defends the med­ical pro­ce­dures Anna has under­gone for Kate’s ben­e­fit, insist­ing they were care­ful­ly explained and posed min­i­mal risk. He acknowl­edges Anna’s role as a “per­fect­ly matched donor” but denies rec­om­mend­ing her con­cep­tion sole­ly for this pur­pose. The lawyer chal­lenges this, sug­gest­ing the Fitzger­alds were implic­it­ly guid­ed to cre­ate a genet­i­cal­ly com­pat­i­ble child. The doc­tor deflects, empha­siz­ing the unpre­dictabil­i­ty of can­cer treat­ment and Kate’s mirac­u­lous sur­vival, though the lawyer under­scores Anna’s sac­ri­fices as the foun­da­tion of that sur­vival.

    The lawyer inten­si­fies his scruti­ny, pre­sent­ing con­sent forms detail­ing the risks Anna faced dur­ing pro­ce­dures, includ­ing anes­the­sia com­pli­ca­tions. Dr. Chance down­plays these risks as rare, but the lawyer coun­ters with exam­ples of his­tor­i­cal med­ical fail­ures, like thalido­mide. He then ques­tions the long-term effects of Anna’s treat­ments, reveal­ing gaps in human research. The doc­tor admits the­o­ret­i­cal safe­ty but lacks con­crete data, under­min­ing his ear­li­er assur­ances. The exchange expos­es the eth­i­cal ambi­gu­i­ty of sub­ject­ing Anna to unproven med­ical inter­ven­tions.

    Final­ly, the lawyer con­fronts Dr. Chance about the pro­posed kid­ney dona­tion, chal­leng­ing his claim that Anna would face no last­ing con­se­quences. He cites hos­pi­tal lit­er­a­ture warn­ing of hyper­ten­sion and activ­i­ty restric­tions, direct­ly con­flict­ing with Anna’s hock­ey par­tic­i­pa­tion. The chap­ter ends with the lawyer poised to delve deep­er into Anna’s past dona­tions, leav­ing the doc­tor’s cred­i­bil­i­ty in ques­tion. The scene under­scores the moral com­plex­i­ty of sac­ri­fic­ing one child’s well-being for anoth­er’s sur­vival, framed by sharp legal and med­ical debate.

    Down­load PDF Sum­ma­ry

    FAQs

    • 1. What ethical concerns are raised by Anna’s conception and role as a donor for her sister Kate?

      Answer:
      The chapter highlights significant ethical dilemmas surrounding Anna’s conception as a “genetically programmed” donor for Kate. While Dr. Chance claims he never explicitly advised the Fitzgeralds to conceive a matched donor, he presented the possibility of a future child being a match as hope for Kate’s survival (e.g., “even if none of the existing children was a match, that didn’t mean a future child might not be”). The attorney’s questioning reveals the slippery slope of this arrangement—Anna was repeatedly subjected to medical procedures (cord blood, marrow, lymphocytes) with potential risks, blurring the line between voluntary donation and instrumental use of her body. The ethical tension lies in whether Anna’s autonomy was compromised from birth, as her existence was tied to Kate’s medical needs.

      2. How does the attorney challenge Dr. Chance’s assertion that Anna’s donations caused “no significant long-term harm”?

      Answer:
      The attorney systematically dismantles this claim by highlighting documented risks. He cites the anesthesia consent form listing severe potential outcomes like “brain damage” or death, and contrasts this with Dr. Chance’s dismissive attitude (“Anna’s forgotten about it by now”). He further underscores unknown long-term effects of growth factor shots (tested only on lab animals) and the kidney donation’s impact on Anna’s lifestyle (e.g., hypertension risks, pregnancy complications, and her hockey participation). By juxtaposing medical paperwork with the doctor’s minimized assessments, the attorney reveals a pattern of downplaying risks to justify ongoing donations, suggesting systemic negligence toward Anna’s welfare.

      3. Analyze the power dynamics in the courtroom scene. How do the characters’ motivations conflict?

      Answer:
      The scene pits three competing agendas: Dr. Chance’s urgency to return to Kate’s care (symbolized by his frequent watch-checking), Sara Fitzgerald’s desperation to save Kate at any cost, and the attorney’s mission to advocate for Anna’s rights. The attorney weaponizes procedural delays (e.g., bathroom breaks, slow questioning) to mirror the power imbalance Anna faced in medical settings. Meanwhile, Dr. Chance’s defensive tone (“It’s to protect us from people like you”) reveals his prioritization of medical authority over patient autonomy. Sara’s silent alignment with the doctor underscores her tragic dilemma: viewing Anna as both a daughter and a means to save Kate. These tensions reflect broader themes of bodily autonomy versus familial obligation.

      4. How does the attorney use rhetorical strategies to undermine Dr. Chance’s credibility?

      Answer:
      The attorney employs several tactics: (1) Hypothetical extremes (“cut off her head”) to expose logical gaps in the doctor’s risk assessment; (2) Documentary evidence (consent forms, hospital flyers) to contradict verbal assurances; (3) Historical parallels (thalidomide reference) to challenge trust in medical infallibility; and (4) Sarcasm (“How comforting”) to highlight ethical lapses. By shifting between Anna’s lived experiences (e.g., hockey) and abstract medical jargon (“no long-term sequelae”), he frames the doctor as out of touch with the human consequences of his decisions, painting the donations as exploitative rather than heroic.

      Answer:
      The chapter critiques the illusion of consent in Anna’s case. While Sara signed forms acknowledging risks (e.g., anesthesia complications), the attorney reveals how systemic pressures—emotional distress, trust in doctors, and Kate’s urgency—may have compromised truly informed decision-making. Dr. Chance admits growth factor effects on humans are “still being tracked,” yet Anna was subjected to them. The repeated framing of Anna’s donations as “simple” procedures contrasts starkly with documented risks, suggesting consent was transactional rather than empowering. This raises profound questions: Can parents ethically consent to non-therapeutic procedures for minors? When does hope cross into coercion? The chapter implies that true consent requires transparency about uncertainties and respect for the donor’s evolving autonomy.

    Quotes

    • 1. “DOCTORS HAVE THIS THING about being subpoenaed: they let you know, with every syllable of every word, that no moment of this testimony will make up for the fact that while they were sitting on the witness stand under duress, patients were waiting, people were dying.”

      This opening quote sets the tense atmosphere of the courtroom scene and introduces the central conflict—the ethical dilemma of medical professionals prioritizing their patients over legal obligations, while hinting at the life-and-death stakes of Kate’s condition.

      2. “Nothing in cancer is a sure thing, Mr. Alexander.”

      Dr. Chance’s blunt statement underscores the uncertainty of medical treatments, particularly in cancer cases, which becomes a recurring theme in the chapter as the risks and experimental nature of Anna’s donations are scrutinized.

      3. “We were talking about a single cord blood treatment at the time… Subsequent donations came about because Kate didn’t respond to the first one. And because they offered more promising results.”

      This quote reveals how Anna’s role as a donor escalated over time, highlighting the slippery slope of medical interventions and the ethical questions surrounding the Fitzgeralds’ decisions to use Anna’s body repeatedly for Kate’s survival.

      4. “I understand that anesthesia involves potential risks. These risks may include, but are not limited to: adverse drug reactions… brain damage, and even loss of bodily function or of life.”

      The reading of the consent form starkly contrasts with Dr. Chance’s earlier dismissal of risks, emphasizing the very real dangers Anna faced with each procedure—a key point in the legal argument against her continued use as a donor.

      5. “Theoretically, there shouldn’t be any long-term sequelae… Because the research has been done on lab animals. Effects on humans are still being tracked.”

      This exchange about the unproven long-term effects of Anna’s treatments encapsulates the chapter’s critique of medical experimentation on human subjects, particularly children, without full understanding of consequences.

    Quotes

    1. “DOCTORS HAVE THIS THING about being subpoenaed: they let you know, with every syllable of every word, that no moment of this testimony will make up for the fact that while they were sitting on the witness stand under duress, patients were waiting, people were dying.”

    This opening quote sets the tense atmosphere of the courtroom scene and introduces the central conflict—the ethical dilemma of medical professionals prioritizing their patients over legal obligations, while hinting at the life-and-death stakes of Kate’s condition.

    2. “Nothing in cancer is a sure thing, Mr. Alexander.”

    Dr. Chance’s blunt statement underscores the uncertainty of medical treatments, particularly in cancer cases, which becomes a recurring theme in the chapter as the risks and experimental nature of Anna’s donations are scrutinized.

    3. “We were talking about a single cord blood treatment at the time… Subsequent donations came about because Kate didn’t respond to the first one. And because they offered more promising results.”

    This quote reveals how Anna’s role as a donor escalated over time, highlighting the slippery slope of medical interventions and the ethical questions surrounding the Fitzgeralds’ decisions to use Anna’s body repeatedly for Kate’s survival.

    4. “I understand that anesthesia involves potential risks. These risks may include, but are not limited to: adverse drug reactions… brain damage, and even loss of bodily function or of life.”

    The reading of the consent form starkly contrasts with Dr. Chance’s earlier dismissal of risks, emphasizing the very real dangers Anna faced with each procedure—a key point in the legal argument against her continued use as a donor.

    5. “Theoretically, there shouldn’t be any long-term sequelae… Because the research has been done on lab animals. Effects on humans are still being tracked.”

    This exchange about the unproven long-term effects of Anna’s treatments encapsulates the chapter’s critique of medical experimentation on human subjects, particularly children, without full understanding of consequences.

    FAQs

    1. What ethical concerns are raised by Anna’s conception and role as a donor for her sister Kate?

    Answer:
    The chapter highlights significant ethical dilemmas surrounding Anna’s conception as a “genetically programmed” donor for Kate. While Dr. Chance claims he never explicitly advised the Fitzgeralds to conceive a matched donor, he presented the possibility of a future child being a match as hope for Kate’s survival (e.g., “even if none of the existing children was a match, that didn’t mean a future child might not be”). The attorney’s questioning reveals the slippery slope of this arrangement—Anna was repeatedly subjected to medical procedures (cord blood, marrow, lymphocytes) with potential risks, blurring the line between voluntary donation and instrumental use of her body. The ethical tension lies in whether Anna’s autonomy was compromised from birth, as her existence was tied to Kate’s medical needs.

    2. How does the attorney challenge Dr. Chance’s assertion that Anna’s donations caused “no significant long-term harm”?

    Answer:
    The attorney systematically dismantles this claim by highlighting documented risks. He cites the anesthesia consent form listing severe potential outcomes like “brain damage” or death, and contrasts this with Dr. Chance’s dismissive attitude (“Anna’s forgotten about it by now”). He further underscores unknown long-term effects of growth factor shots (tested only on lab animals) and the kidney donation’s impact on Anna’s lifestyle (e.g., hypertension risks, pregnancy complications, and her hockey participation). By juxtaposing medical paperwork with the doctor’s minimized assessments, the attorney reveals a pattern of downplaying risks to justify ongoing donations, suggesting systemic negligence toward Anna’s welfare.

    3. Analyze the power dynamics in the courtroom scene. How do the characters’ motivations conflict?

    Answer:
    The scene pits three competing agendas: Dr. Chance’s urgency to return to Kate’s care (symbolized by his frequent watch-checking), Sara Fitzgerald’s desperation to save Kate at any cost, and the attorney’s mission to advocate for Anna’s rights. The attorney weaponizes procedural delays (e.g., bathroom breaks, slow questioning) to mirror the power imbalance Anna faced in medical settings. Meanwhile, Dr. Chance’s defensive tone (“It’s to protect us from people like you”) reveals his prioritization of medical authority over patient autonomy. Sara’s silent alignment with the doctor underscores her tragic dilemma: viewing Anna as both a daughter and a means to save Kate. These tensions reflect broader themes of bodily autonomy versus familial obligation.

    4. How does the attorney use rhetorical strategies to undermine Dr. Chance’s credibility?

    Answer:
    The attorney employs several tactics: (1) Hypothetical extremes (“cut off her head”) to expose logical gaps in the doctor’s risk assessment; (2) Documentary evidence (consent forms, hospital flyers) to contradict verbal assurances; (3) Historical parallels (thalidomide reference) to challenge trust in medical infallibility; and (4) Sarcasm (“How comforting”) to highlight ethical lapses. By shifting between Anna’s lived experiences (e.g., hockey) and abstract medical jargon (“no long-term sequelae”), he frames the doctor as out of touch with the human consequences of his decisions, painting the donations as exploitative rather than heroic.

    Answer:
    The chapter critiques the illusion of consent in Anna’s case. While Sara signed forms acknowledging risks (e.g., anesthesia complications), the attorney reveals how systemic pressures—emotional distress, trust in doctors, and Kate’s urgency—may have compromised truly informed decision-making. Dr. Chance admits growth factor effects on humans are “still being tracked,” yet Anna was subjected to them. The repeated framing of Anna’s donations as “simple” procedures contrasts starkly with documented risks, suggesting consent was transactional rather than empowering. This raises profound questions: Can parents ethically consent to non-therapeutic procedures for minors? When does hope cross into coercion? The chapter implies that true consent requires transparency about uncertainties and respect for the donor’s evolving autonomy.

    Note