
My Sister’s Keeper
THURSDAY CAMPBELL
by Picoult, JodieThe 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.
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.