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 cen­ters on a court­room dra­ma where the pro­tag­o­nist, like­ly a lawyer named Camp­bell, deliv­ers a pas­sion­ate argu­ment about the auton­o­my of a 13-year-old girl, Anna, who is fight­ing for the right to make her own med­ical deci­sions. Camp­bell empha­sizes that the case isn’t just about donat­ing a kid­ney to her sis­ter Kate but about Anna’s right to self-dis­cov­ery and auton­o­my. He argues that even at her young age, Anna deserves the chance to deter­mine her own future, and her voice should be the decid­ing fac­tor in mat­ters con­cern­ing her body. The speech chal­lenges the tra­di­tion­al role of par­ents and soci­ety in mak­ing such weighty deci­sions for minors.

    Judge DeSalvo’s delib­er­a­tion reveals the com­plex­i­ty of bal­anc­ing the sanc­ti­ty of life with the qual­i­ty of life, par­tic­u­lar­ly in cas­es where fam­i­ly mem­bers have con­flict­ing med­ical needs. He reflects on his per­son­al loss, acknowl­edg­ing the Fitzger­alds’ strug­gle to keep Kate alive while rec­og­niz­ing Anna’s right to bod­i­ly auton­o­my. The judge con­cludes that no one is tru­ly qual­i­fied to make such moral deci­sions for anoth­er, high­light­ing the blurred lines between ethics, love, and law. His rul­ing leans toward empow­er­ing Anna, empha­siz­ing that age shouldn’t negate her capac­i­ty to under­stand and make crit­i­cal choic­es about her own health.

    In a piv­otal moment, Judge DeSal­vo grants Anna med­ical eman­ci­pa­tion, strip­ping her par­ents of the final say in her med­ical treat­ments while allow­ing them to retain oth­er parental respon­si­bil­i­ties. Camp­bell is appoint­ed as her med­ical pow­er of attor­ney, a role he accepts with humil­i­ty. The judge’s deci­sion under­scores the impor­tance of con­sent and respect for indi­vid­ual agency, even in the face of famil­ial and soci­etal pres­sures. Anna’s vic­to­ry is por­trayed as a tri­umph of per­son­al auton­o­my over col­lec­tive deci­sion-mak­ing.

    The chap­ter con­cludes with a touch­ing scene where Anna, still in shock, is con­grat­u­lat­ed by Camp­bell and her fam­i­ly. The court­room dra­ma tran­si­tions into a moment of qui­et tri­umph, hint­ing at the emo­tion­al and eth­i­cal com­plex­i­ties that lie ahead. The nar­ra­tive leaves read­ers pon­der­ing the broad­er impli­ca­tions of the rul­ing, ques­tion­ing how soci­ety nav­i­gates the inter­sec­tion of love, law, and per­son­al free­dom in mat­ters of life and death.

    Down­load PDF Sum­ma­ry

    FAQs

    • 1. What is the central argument made by the narrator (Campbell) about Anna’s right to make medical decisions for herself?

      Answer:
      Campbell argues that the case is not merely about Anna donating a kidney or any biological material but about her right to autonomy as a developing individual. He emphasizes that Anna, despite being only thirteen, deserves the chance to discover who she is and what she wants. The core of his argument is that the final say in medical decisions should belong to the person whose body is directly affected—Anna—even if her parents, doctors, or the court disagree. This reflects the broader theme of bodily autonomy and the ethical principle that personal consent is paramount in medical matters.

      2. How does Judge DeSalvo’s personal history influence his ruling in the case?

      Answer:
      Judge DeSalvo’s decision is deeply influenced by the loss of his own twelve-year-old daughter, Dena, which he references during his ruling. His grief gives him a unique perspective on the Fitzgeralds’ desire to keep Kate alive, as he would have done anything for more time with his child. However, this personal tragedy also leads him to recognize the complexity of balancing the “sanctity of life” with the “quality of life.” His empathy for the parents does not overshadow his legal and moral conclusion: Anna, as the person most affected, must have the ultimate authority over her medical choices.

      3. What does the judge’s declaration of Anna as “medically emancipated” entail, and what conditions accompany it?

      Answer:
      Judge DeSalvo’s ruling grants Anna medical emancipation, meaning she retains the final decision-making power over her medical treatments while continuing to live with her parents. The judge orders her parents to meet with her and her pediatrician to formalize this arrangement and designates Campbell as her medical power of attorney until she turns eighteen. This ensures Anna has guidance for complex decisions while upholding her autonomy. The ruling carefully balances her independence with support, acknowledging that age alone does not determine one’s capacity to understand such weighty choices.

      4. Analyze the significance of Campbell’s interaction with the child and mother about his service dog. How does this moment reflect his character?

      Answer:
      This moment reveals Campbell’s wit and his tendency to deflect personal vulnerability with humor. When the mother assumes his service dog is for blindness, he jokes, “He chases ambulances for me,” masking the truth (his epilepsy) behind a lawyer stereotype. This reflects his guarded nature—he avoids revealing his condition even in a casual encounter. Yet his lighthearted response also shows self-awareness and resilience, traits that parallel his legal advocacy for Anna: he fights for transparency in her case while struggling with his own secrets.

      5. Judge DeSalvo states, “Morals are more important than ethics, and love is more important than law.” How does this philosophy shape the verdict, and do you agree with its implications?

      Answer:
      This statement underscores the judge’s belief that human relationships and moral intuition should take precedence over rigid legal or ethical frameworks. His ruling prioritizes Anna’s emotional and bodily autonomy (a moral and loving stance) over traditional parental authority or medical ethics. While this approach empowers Anna, it raises questions about whether such subjectivity could lead to inconsistent rulings. One might argue that love and morals are vital but require ethical boundaries to protect all parties. The verdict succeeds in this case because it aligns with Anna’s best interests, but the philosophy risks ambiguity in other contexts.

    Quotes

    • 1. “It’s about a girl who is on the cusp of becoming someone. A girl who is thirteen—which is hard, and painful, and beautiful, and difficult, and exhilarating. A girl who may not know what she wants right now, and she may not know who she is right now, but who deserves the chance to find out.”

      This quote captures the core argument of the chapter—that Anna’s autonomy and right to self-discovery outweigh medical necessity. It powerfully frames adolescence as a sacred period of identity formation that shouldn’t be compromised, even for familial obligations.

      2. “The answer is that there is no good answer. So as parents, as doctors, as judges, and as a society, we fumble through and make decisions that allow us to sleep at night—because morals are more important than ethics, and love is more important than law.”

      Judge DeSalvo’s verdict highlights the moral complexity of the case, prioritizing human relationships over rigid legal frameworks. This philosophical conclusion elevates the chapter’s ethical debate beyond medical jurisprudence to universal questions about difficult choices.

      3. “You don’t take something away from someone without asking permission.”

      This simple childhood principle becomes the legal and moral foundation for granting Anna medical emancipation. Its elegance lies in reducing a complex bioethical dilemma to an intuitive truth about bodily autonomy that even a child can understand.

      4. “I’m a lawyer,” I say, and I grin at her. “He chases ambulances for me.”

      This humorous deflection about the service dog reveals the protagonist’s internal conflict about revealing his epilepsy. The witty evasion contrasts with the chapter’s heavier themes while subtly reinforcing ideas about self-determination and personal disclosure.

    Quotes

    1. “It’s about a girl who is on the cusp of becoming someone. A girl who is thirteen—which is hard, and painful, and beautiful, and difficult, and exhilarating. A girl who may not know what she wants right now, and she may not know who she is right now, but who deserves the chance to find out.”

    This quote captures the core argument of the chapter—that Anna’s autonomy and right to self-discovery outweigh medical necessity. It powerfully frames adolescence as a sacred period of identity formation that shouldn’t be compromised, even for familial obligations.

    2. “The answer is that there is no good answer. So as parents, as doctors, as judges, and as a society, we fumble through and make decisions that allow us to sleep at night—because morals are more important than ethics, and love is more important than law.”

    Judge DeSalvo’s verdict highlights the moral complexity of the case, prioritizing human relationships over rigid legal frameworks. This philosophical conclusion elevates the chapter’s ethical debate beyond medical jurisprudence to universal questions about difficult choices.

    3. “You don’t take something away from someone without asking permission.”

    This simple childhood principle becomes the legal and moral foundation for granting Anna medical emancipation. Its elegance lies in reducing a complex bioethical dilemma to an intuitive truth about bodily autonomy that even a child can understand.

    4. “I’m a lawyer,” I say, and I grin at her. “He chases ambulances for me.”

    This humorous deflection about the service dog reveals the protagonist’s internal conflict about revealing his epilepsy. The witty evasion contrasts with the chapter’s heavier themes while subtly reinforcing ideas about self-determination and personal disclosure.

    FAQs

    1. What is the central argument made by the narrator (Campbell) about Anna’s right to make medical decisions for herself?

    Answer:
    Campbell argues that the case is not merely about Anna donating a kidney or any biological material but about her right to autonomy as a developing individual. He emphasizes that Anna, despite being only thirteen, deserves the chance to discover who she is and what she wants. The core of his argument is that the final say in medical decisions should belong to the person whose body is directly affected—Anna—even if her parents, doctors, or the court disagree. This reflects the broader theme of bodily autonomy and the ethical principle that personal consent is paramount in medical matters.

    2. How does Judge DeSalvo’s personal history influence his ruling in the case?

    Answer:
    Judge DeSalvo’s decision is deeply influenced by the loss of his own twelve-year-old daughter, Dena, which he references during his ruling. His grief gives him a unique perspective on the Fitzgeralds’ desire to keep Kate alive, as he would have done anything for more time with his child. However, this personal tragedy also leads him to recognize the complexity of balancing the “sanctity of life” with the “quality of life.” His empathy for the parents does not overshadow his legal and moral conclusion: Anna, as the person most affected, must have the ultimate authority over her medical choices.

    3. What does the judge’s declaration of Anna as “medically emancipated” entail, and what conditions accompany it?

    Answer:
    Judge DeSalvo’s ruling grants Anna medical emancipation, meaning she retains the final decision-making power over her medical treatments while continuing to live with her parents. The judge orders her parents to meet with her and her pediatrician to formalize this arrangement and designates Campbell as her medical power of attorney until she turns eighteen. This ensures Anna has guidance for complex decisions while upholding her autonomy. The ruling carefully balances her independence with support, acknowledging that age alone does not determine one’s capacity to understand such weighty choices.

    4. Analyze the significance of Campbell’s interaction with the child and mother about his service dog. How does this moment reflect his character?

    Answer:
    This moment reveals Campbell’s wit and his tendency to deflect personal vulnerability with humor. When the mother assumes his service dog is for blindness, he jokes, “He chases ambulances for me,” masking the truth (his epilepsy) behind a lawyer stereotype. This reflects his guarded nature—he avoids revealing his condition even in a casual encounter. Yet his lighthearted response also shows self-awareness and resilience, traits that parallel his legal advocacy for Anna: he fights for transparency in her case while struggling with his own secrets.

    5. Judge DeSalvo states, “Morals are more important than ethics, and love is more important than law.” How does this philosophy shape the verdict, and do you agree with its implications?

    Answer:
    This statement underscores the judge’s belief that human relationships and moral intuition should take precedence over rigid legal or ethical frameworks. His ruling prioritizes Anna’s emotional and bodily autonomy (a moral and loving stance) over traditional parental authority or medical ethics. While this approach empowers Anna, it raises questions about whether such subjectivity could lead to inconsistent rulings. One might argue that love and morals are vital but require ethical boundaries to protect all parties. The verdict succeeds in this case because it aligns with Anna’s best interests, but the philosophy risks ambiguity in other contexts.

    Note