My Sister’s Keeper
TUESDAY CAMPBELL
by Picoult, JodieThe chapter centers on a pivotal courtroom scene where Brian Fitzgerald, father of Anna and Kate, testifies in Anna’s lawsuit for medical emancipation. Campbell Alexander, Anna’s lawyer, had pinned his hopes on Brian supporting Anna’s decision to stop being a donor for her terminally ill sister, Kate. However, Brian’s testimony takes an unexpected turn when he admits he still wants Anna to donate a kidney, undermining Campbell’s strategy. The emotional tension escalates as Brian grapples with his conflicting roles as a father to both daughters, torn between saving Kate and protecting Anna.
Brian’s testimony reveals the family’s painful history of medical interventions, starting with Anna’s cord blood donation at birth and escalating to bone marrow and lymphocyte donations. He confesses his initial reluctance but explains how desperation to save Kate overrode his concerns. The cross-examination highlights Sara Fitzgerald’s unwavering determination to keep Kate alive, contrasting with Brian’s moments of doubt. His raw admission—“I know what’s right. I know what’s fair. But neither of those apply here”—captures the moral ambiguity of their situation.
Anna’s reaction to her father’s testimony is visceral, symbolized by her silent heartbreak as Brian’s words shatter her hope for autonomy. Campbell scrambles to salvage the case, realizing Brian’s reversal weakens Anna’s emancipation claim. The scene underscores the family’s fractured dynamics, particularly when Sara enters the courtroom, and Brian’s gaze lingers on her, emphasizing their unresolved conflict. The chapter paints a poignant picture of a family trapped in an impossible ethical dilemma.
The recess scene shifts to Anna and Campbell in a quieter moment, where her subdued demeanor reflects her devastation. Brian’s emotional collapse on the witness stand—forehead pressed to the wood—mirrors the chapter’s central theme: the crushing weight of impossible choices. The narrative leaves the reader questioning whether legal emancipation can resolve a crisis rooted in love, guilt, and survival, setting the stage for Sara’s impending cross-examination and the trial’s uncertain outcome.
FAQs
1. What was Campbell Alexander’s legal strategy for Anna’s emancipation case, and why did Brian Fitzgerald’s testimony undermine it?
Answer:
Campbell Alexander’s strategy hinged on demonstrating that at least one parent (Brian) supported Anna’s decision to stop being a medical donor for her sister Kate. This would make emancipation seem less radical to the judge. Campbell planned for Brian to testify that he recognized Anna’s rights and supported her choice, which would neutralize Julia’s report and simplify Anna’s testimony. However, Brian ultimately testified that he still wanted Anna to donate a kidney to Kate, contradicting their rehearsed answer. This undermined the case by making Anna’s emancipation appear unsupported by both parents, weakening her legal standing.2. Analyze the ethical dilemma Brian Fitzgerald faces as both a father and an EMT. How does his professional training conflict with his parental decisions?
Answer:
As an EMT, Brian adheres to medical ethics that prohibit performing procedures on healthy patients, especially those with no personal benefit. Yet as a father, he repeatedly approved invasive procedures (lymphocyte donations, bone marrow extraction) for Anna to save Kate. This conflict is evident when Campbell highlights that Brian would never treat a healthy patient this way professionally. Brian acknowledges the contradiction but explains the impossible choice of losing one daughter to save another. His professional logic clashes with parental desperation, revealing how crisis can override ethical principles.3. How does Sara Fitzgerald’s arrival in the courtroom affect the dynamics between Brian and Anna? What does this reveal about family tensions?
Answer:
Sara’s entrance fractures the already strained family unity. Brian’s gaze follows her, signaling unresolved marital conflict, while Anna’s refusal to leave Campbell’s side shows her distrust of private conversations between adults about her fate. This moment underscores the family’s fragmentation: Sara and Brian are physically and emotionally separated, Anna feels objectified, and Brian is torn between loyalty to his wife and daughter. The silent tension highlights how the lawsuit has amplified preexisting fractures, reducing communication to glances and unspoken questions.4. Brian mentions “a better solution” that he hasn’t found in 13 years. What does this reveal about the limitations of medical ethics in family crises?
Answer:
Brian’s admission reflects the inadequacy of binary ethical frameworks (e.g., autonomy vs. beneficence) in prolonged familial medical crises. He recognizes the “right” and “fair” answers intellectually but cannot apply them when both choices (forcing Anna’s donations or letting Kate die) feel morally catastrophic. His despair shows how medical ethics fail to address emotional realities—like a parent’s inability to “choose” between children. The systemic lack of alternatives (e.g., better treatments, third-party donors) exacerbates this, trapping families in cyclical sacrifice.5. Critical Thinking: Evaluate Anna’s reaction to Brian’s testimony. Why might his reversal feel like a “quiet break of soul” for her?
Answer:
Anna’s shattered hope stems from believing her father finally prioritized her autonomy over Kate’s survival. Earlier, Brian moved out with her, creating the illusion of solidarity. His testimony reveals this was temporary pragmatism, not conviction. The “break” symbolizes her realization that, in crisis, even her ally defaults to viewing her as a resource for Kate. This mirrors her lifelong role as a donor—valued for utility rather than personhood. The moment underscores the isolation of children in medical-family disputes, where parental love becomes conditional on compliance.
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 in extreme circumstances can force impossible choices. It reveals the psychological toll of prioritizing one child’s survival over another’s autonomy.
2. “I didn’t want to do that to Anna. But I couldn’t lose Kate.”
This stark, two-sentence confession encapsulates the central conflict of the story - the painful trade-off between protecting Anna’s bodily autonomy and preserving Kate’s life. It demonstrates how love can become a zero-sum game in medical crises.
3. “I know what’s right. I know what’s fair. But neither of those apply here.”
Brian’s breakdown on the stand represents the chapter’s emotional climax and philosophical core. This quote powerfully expresses how traditional moral frameworks collapse when faced with life-and-death family decisions, leaving only impossible choices.
4. “It’s been thirteen years, Mr. Alexander, and I still haven’t found it.”
This closing reflection underscores the prolonged nature of the family’s suffering and the exhaustion of seeking solutions. The temporal reference (“thirteen years”) emphasizes how chronic illness can stretch moral dilemmas across lifetimes.