My Sister’s Keeper
TUESDAY CAMPBELL
by Picoult, JodieThe chapter centers on a pivotal courtroom scene where Brian Fitzgerald, father of Anna and Kate, is questioned about his stance on Anna’s lawsuit seeking emancipation to avoid further medical donations for her sister. Campbell Alexander, Anna’s lawyer, had hoped Brian would support Anna’s decision, strengthening the case for emancipation. However, Brian’s testimony takes an unexpected turn when he admits he still wishes Anna would donate a kidney to Kate, despite initially appearing to side with Anna. This revelation shocks both Campbell and Anna, undermining their legal strategy and exposing the emotional turmoil within the family.
Brian’s testimony reveals the moral and emotional conflict he faces as a parent torn between two daughters. He recounts past disagreements with his wife, Sara, over using Anna’s body for Kate’s treatments, acknowledging his reluctance but ultimately justifying his decisions out of fear of losing Kate. His raw admission—“I couldn’t let Kate die”—highlights the impossible choices faced by families in medical crises. Brian’s breakdown on the stand underscores the weight of his guilt and confusion, as he admits there is no clear right answer, only unbearable sacrifices.
Anna’s reaction to her father’s testimony is one of quiet devastation. Her hope for parental support is shattered, and Campbell scrambles to salvage the case. The chapter captures Anna’s isolation as she processes her father’s betrayal, symbolized by her silent break of soul. Meanwhile, Sara’s presence looms, her strained relationship with Brian adding another layer of tension. The family’s fractured dynamics are laid bare, with each member grappling with love, duty, and survival in conflicting ways.
The chapter ends with a recess, leaving the characters—and readers—to absorb the emotional fallout. Anna and Campbell retreat to a vending machine area, where her subdued demeanor reflects her crushed hopes. Brian’s testimony has not only jeopardized the legal case but also deepened the emotional chasm within the family. The scene sets the stage for Sara’s cross-examination, promising further confrontation and heartbreak as the courtroom drama unfolds.
FAQs
1. What was Campbell Alexander’s legal strategy for winning Anna’s emancipation case, and why did Brian Fitzgerald’s testimony undermine it?
Answer:
Campbell’s strategy relied on showing that at least one parent supported Anna’s decision to stop being a medical donor for her sister Kate. He planned for Brian to testify that he recognized Anna’s rights and would support her emancipation, making Julia’s report and Anna’s testimony less critical. However, Brian unexpectedly stated he still wanted Anna to donate a kidney to Kate, contradicting their rehearsed testimony. This undermined Campbell’s case because the judge would now find it harder to rule in favor of emancipation without parental consensus, as Brian’s emotional conflict suggested Anna’s decision lacked full familial support.2. Analyze Brian Fitzgerald’s internal conflict regarding his daughters. How does this reflect the ethical dilemma at the heart of the chapter?
Answer:
Brian’s conflict stems from loving both daughters equally but being forced to choose between Anna’s bodily autonomy and Kate’s survival. As an EMT, he knows it’s unethical to perform unnecessary procedures on healthy patients, yet as a father, he struggles to let Kate die. His admission—”I didn’t want to do that to Anna. But I couldn’t lose Kate”—highlights the impossible choice between two morally justifiable but mutually exclusive outcomes. This mirrors the chapter’s central ethical dilemma: whether one child’s right to life justifies infringing on another’s right to self-determination, especially within a family dynamic where love complicates impartial judgment.3. How does Anna’s reaction to Brian’s testimony reveal her emotional state and expectations?
Answer:
Anna’s silent, breathless stillness during Brian’s testimony and her later “quiet break of soul” reveal profound betrayal and shattered hope. Earlier, she refused to leave the room, suspecting they’d discuss her in her absence, showing her wariness and desire for transparency. When Brian supports Kate over her, Anna realizes her father’s prior support was conditional—she mistook his temporary solidarity for enduring advocacy. This moment underscores her isolation in the lawsuit; even the parent she trusted prioritizes Kate’s survival, leaving Anna emotionally adrift and questioning whether anyone truly values her autonomy.4. Compare Sara and Brian’s approaches to Kate’s illness. What do their differences reveal about their characters?
Answer:
Sara relentlessly pursues every treatment for Kate, even at Anna’s expense, embodying a “fight at all costs” mentality. Brian, while initially compliant, grows conflicted, questioning the ethics of using Anna and even considering letting Kate go during crises. Sara’s single-minded focus shows her determination but also a willingness to overlook Anna’s suffering, whereas Brian’s hesitation reveals his moral awareness and emotional exhaustion. Their divergence peaks when Brian moves out with Anna, demonstrating his capacity to prioritize Anna’s needs—until his testimony regresses, showing how grief and guilt can erode resolve.5. Why does Campbell describe Brian’s testimony as an “emotional avalanche” headed for his “glass house”? What literary devices are at work here?
Answer:
Campbell uses metaphors to convey the fragility of his legal strategy (“glass house”) and the destructive force of Brian’s raw emotion (“avalanche”). The “glass house” represents Campbell’s meticulously constructed but vulnerable case, built on the assumption of Brian’s cooperation. The “avalanche” symbolizes Brian’s uncontrollable guilt and love, which crushes Campbell’s plan. These devices emphasize how legal tactics falter against human complexity—Brian’s paternal instincts override logic, leaving Campbell scrambling. The imagery also foreshadows the case’s unraveling and the broader theme that emotional truths often defy neat legal or ethical frameworks.
Quotes
1. “You don’t know what it’s like until your child is dying. You find yourself saying things and doing things you don’t want to do or say. And you think it’s something you have a choice about, but then you get up a little closer to it, and you see you had it all wrong.”
This poignant admission from Brian Fitzgerald captures the moral dilemma at the heart of the chapter - how parental love and desperation can override ethical boundaries. It reveals the psychological toll of making medical decisions for one child at another’s expense.
2. “I didn’t want to do that to Anna. But I couldn’t lose Kate.”
This stark confession represents the impossible choice Brian faces between his daughters. The brevity of the statement underscores how love reduces complex ethical questions to primal emotional calculus, setting up the central conflict of the legal case.
3. “Can you tell me what the right answer is here? Because I don’t know where to look for it. I know what’s right. I know what’s fair. But neither of those apply here.”
Brian’s breakdown on the stand marks the chapter’s emotional climax. This quote powerfully conveys how traditional moral frameworks collapse when forced to choose between children’s wellbeing, highlighting the novel’s exploration of medical ethics versus familial bonds.
4. “It’s been thirteen years, Mr. Alexander, and I still haven’t found it.”
This closing line of Brian’s testimony serves as both personal confession and thematic summation. The temporal reference (“thirteen years”) emphasizes how prolonged medical crises can erode moral certainty, while the admission of unresolved conflict foreshadows the ongoing legal battle.