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.

    Camp­bell 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.

    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.

    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.

    Note