
My Sister’s Keeper
FRIDAY CAMPBELL
by Picoult, JodieCampbell Alexander arrives at Providence Hospital with his service dog, Judge, only to be confronted by a hostile security officer who denies them entry. Despite claiming Judge is CPR-certified for his irregular heartbeat, Campbell faces resistance. He seeks out Dr. Peter Bergen, chairman of the medical ethics board, to obtain Anna Fitzgerald’s medical records, but Bergen insists the ethics committee has only reviewed her sister Kate’s case. Campbell presses the issue, highlighting Anna’s numerous hospital visits, but Bergen dismisses the relevance, arguing the committee only intervenes in conflicts between patients and physicians.
The chapter shifts to a flashback where Campbell recalls a heated argument with Julia Romano, his former lover, about the Virgin Mary. Their disagreement escalates when Campbell’s locker spills condoms, embarrassing Julia and causing her to flee. The memory underscores their strained relationship, marked by miscommunication and unresolved tension. This past conflict contrasts with their present encounter in the hospital elevator, where they awkwardly reunite while discussing the Fitzgerald case. Julia reveals she’s been unable to contact Anna’s family, mirroring Campbell’s frustrations.
Campbell and Julia’s interaction is fraught with sarcasm and unresolved emotions. He suggests they collaborate to prepare for Anna’s upcoming hearing, but Julia initially resists. Campbell appeals to her professionalism, emphasizing Anna’s need for representation despite their personal history. Julia’s sharp retorts and Campbell’s witty comebacks reveal their lingering chemistry and animosity. Their dialogue oscillates between hostility and reluctant cooperation, reflecting the complexity of their past relationship.
The chapter concludes with Campbell and Julia at an impasse, their professional duties colliding with personal baggage. Campbell’s determination to advocate for Anna contrasts with Julia’s guarded demeanor, yet both seem aware of the stakes. The unresolved tension between them hints at future collaboration or confrontation, while the Fitzgerald case remains uncertain. The chapter captures Campbell’s tenacity, Julia’s resilience, and the ethical ambiguities surrounding Anna’s medical history, setting the stage for further conflict and resolution.
FAQs
1. What is the main conflict Campbell faces when entering the hospital, and how does it reflect his character traits?
Answer:
Campbell’s immediate conflict involves a security officer denying him entry with his service dog, Judge, despite his explanation that Judge is CPR-certified for his irregular heartbeat. This encounter highlights Campbell’s quick wit and tendency to use sarcasm (comparing the officer to “Hitler in drag”) when challenged. His persistence in gaining access despite obstacles demonstrates his determined nature, a trait that carries through his professional pursuit of Anna Fitzgerald’s case even when facing bureaucratic resistance from Dr. Bergen later in the chapter.2. Analyze the significance of the flashback scene between Campbell and Julia in the context of their current dynamic.
Answer:
The flashback to their high school argument about the Virgin Mary reveals longstanding tensions in Campbell and Julia’s relationship. Campbell’s cynical humor and refusal to defend their relationship publicly (evidenced by the condom prank he doesn’t condemn) contrasts with Julia’s vulnerability and desire for authenticity. This history explains their current strained interactions—Julia’s distrust (“You’re so glib”) and Campbell’s deflection through jokes. The scene underscores how their past emotional wounds continue to shape their professional collaboration regarding Anna’s case.3. How does Dr. Bergen’s response to Campbell’s request for Anna’s medical records reveal ethical complexities in the healthcare system?
Answer:
Dr. Bergen’s dismissal (“We don’t go looking for problems”) exposes systemic gaps in medical ethics oversight. He argues the ethics committee only intervenes when doctors and patients disagree, implying Anna’s repeated hospitalizations (eight times) weren’t scrutinized because no overt conflict existed. This raises critical questions about passive ethics frameworks—whether institutions should proactively evaluate cases involving minors in non-emergency procedures, especially when those procedures primarily benefit another patient (Kate). Bergen’s prioritization of his Tai Chi over Campbell’s queries further satirizes bureaucratic indifference.4. Compare Campbell’s interactions with the secretary and Dr. Bergen. What do these scenes convey about power dynamics?
Answer:
With the secretary, Campbell exhibits dismissiveness (“why waste [a reply] on her?”) when she infantilizes Judge as a “puppy,” showcasing his impatience with perceived incompetence. In contrast, his engagement with Dr. Bergen—though still sarcastic—demonstrates strategic adaptability. He tolerates Bergen’s evasion tactics while persistently refocusing the conversation on Anna’s records. These interactions reveal Campbell’s nuanced understanding of power: he bulldozes those with less authority (the secretary) but navigates carefully around figures like Bergen, whose cooperation he needs professionally.5. Evaluate Julia’s statement: “You’re so glib you probably oil your lips every morning.” How does this critique reflect the novel’s broader themes?
Answer:
Julia’s accusation encapsulates the central tension between Campbell’s performative charm and authentic emotional engagement. His “glibness” represents a defense mechanism—seen in his locker-room smirks during the flashback and his quippy hospital banter—that prioritizes wit over vulnerability. This mirrors broader themes of truth versus facade, particularly relevant to Anna’s lawsuit (which challenges superficial medical consent protocols). Julia’s critique underscores how Campbell’s verbal dexterity, while professionally advantageous, hinders meaningful connection, both in their past relationship and current collaboration on Anna’s ethically complex case.
Quotes
1. “You’re not blind.”
This blunt exchange between Campbell and the security officer highlights the immediate conflict and skepticism surrounding service animals, setting the tone for Campbell’s combative approach to navigating systems and authority figures.
2. “When the physicians agree with what the patients want, and vice versa, there’s no conflict. No reason for us to even hear about it.”
Dr. Bergen’s justification for the ethics committee’s inaction reveals the institutional complacency and moral ambiguity at the heart of Anna’s medical exploitation, framing the novel’s central ethical dilemma.
3. “What do you tell them about us when you’re in the locker room?”
Julia’s piercing question during their teenage flashback exposes the core tension in their relationship - Campbell’s performative masculinity versus private vulnerability, a dynamic that still haunts their adult interactions.
4. “You’re so glib you probably oil your lips every morning.”
Julia’s scathing remark perfectly encapsulates their combative chemistry, demonstrating how their unresolved history fuels both attraction and resentment in their professional collaboration.
5. “Just because you and I can’t seem to grow up doesn’t mean Anna shouldn’t have a chance to.”
Campbell’s self-aware plea cuts through their personal drama to refocus on their shared responsibility toward Anna, marking a pivotal moment of professional (if not personal) reconciliation.