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 opens with attor­ney Camp­bell Alexan­der arriv­ing at fam­i­ly court, where he eager­ly engages with reporters, fram­ing his case as nation­al­ly sig­nif­i­cant while sub­tly pro­mot­ing him­self. He hints at broad­er impli­ca­tions for minors’ rights and stem cell research, show­cas­ing his flair for dra­ma and self-pro­mo­tion. Inside the court­room, he exchanges a know­ing glance with Deputy Vern Stack­house, hav­ing ear­li­er plant­ed a tip to attract media atten­tion. The nar­ra­tive high­lights Camp­bel­l’s cal­cu­lat­ed manip­u­la­tion of the sit­u­a­tion, even as he acknowl­edges the moral ambi­gu­i­ty of lever­ag­ing pro bono work for per­son­al gain.

    In cham­bers, Camp­bell clash­es with Judge DeSal­vo over a restrain­ing order motion against Sara Fitzger­ald, Anna’s moth­er, for vio­lat­ing a court order by dis­cussing the case with her daugh­ter. Camp­bell argues that Sara’s dual role as par­ent and oppos­ing coun­sel neces­si­tates phys­i­cal sep­a­ra­tion to pro­tect Anna. Sara defi­ant­ly admits to speak­ing with Anna, insist­ing she was try­ing to resolve the con­flict. The ten­sion esca­lates when Julia Romano, the guardian ad litem, arrives and express­es skep­ti­cism about remov­ing Sara from the home, empha­siz­ing Anna’s con­fu­sion and emo­tion­al vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty.

    Judge DeSal­vo denies the restrain­ing order but stern­ly warns Sara against fur­ther vio­la­tions, threat­en­ing to report her to the bar and evict her from the home if she dis­obeys. Camp­bell, unde­terred, rush­es to meet Anna, only to dis­cov­er she and her father have left. Sara, equal­ly sur­prised, seeks an escape from the media fren­zy. Julia con­fronts Camp­bell, accus­ing him of mis­rep­re­sent­ing Anna’s wish­es and fail­ing to con­sid­er the emo­tion­al toll of sep­a­rat­ing a child from her moth­er. She argues that Anna, as a 13-year-old, lacks the matu­ri­ty to ful­ly grasp the con­se­quences of her legal deci­sions.

    The chap­ter con­cludes with a heat­ed exchange between Camp­bell and Julia, reveal­ing Anna’s change of heart about the peti­tion. Julia crit­i­cizes Camp­bell for focus­ing sole­ly on legal tac­tics while ignor­ing Anna’s emo­tion­al needs. Camp­bell, dis­tract­ed by his dog’s antics, dis­miss­es Juli­a’s con­cerns and departs abrupt­ly, leav­ing the con­flict unre­solved. The scene under­scores the eth­i­cal ten­sions between legal strat­e­gy and famil­ial bonds, as well as Camp­bel­l’s self-serv­ing approach to the case.

    Down­load PDF Sum­ma­ry

    FAQs

    • 1. What ethical dilemma does the narrator (Campbell Alexander) face in this chapter, and how does he justify his actions?

      Answer:
      Campbell Alexander faces an ethical dilemma regarding his self-promotion and manipulation of media attention surrounding his pro bono case. While he acknowledges there may be “a special corner of Hell” for attorneys who shamelessly self-aggrandize, he actively courts reporters, offering sound bites and ensuring the cameras focus on him. He justifies this by framing the case as nationally significant, suggesting the ruling could impact minors’ rights and stem cell research. His actions reveal a tension between professional ethics and personal ambition, as he capitalizes on the case’s high-profile nature while ostensibly working for his client’s benefit.

      Answer:
      Sara Fitzgerald admits to violating the court’s order by discussing the lawsuit with her daughter Anna, despite being explicitly instructed not to. This admission creates a pivotal moment in chambers, described as “a circus tent collapsing.” Her outburst (“Well, of course I did!”) highlights her inability to separate her role as a mother from her role as opposing counsel. This conflict undermines the legal process and demonstrates how emotional investment can compromise professional boundaries. Judge DeSalvo’s warning underscores the seriousness of her ethical violation while acknowledging the human complexity of her position.

      Answer:
      Julia challenges Campbell’s treatment of Anna as a “normal adult client,” arguing that a thirteen-year-old lacks the emotional maturity to fully comprehend the consequences of legal decisions. She provides examples of children misunderstanding court outcomes, emphasizing that Anna likely focused only on the “no pressure” aspect of the restraining order rather than the family separation it would cause. This reveals a fundamental debate about whether minors can truly give informed consent in legal matters and whether attorneys should adjust their approach when representing children versus adults. Julia advocates for a more nuanced, developmentally appropriate strategy.

      Answer:
      Judge, Campbell’s service dog, serves as both a literal and symbolic reflection of his owner’s legal maneuvering. The dog reacts to Campbell’s tension during the hearing, standing when he tenses and biting his expensive suit when he attempts to evade Julia. These actions mirror how Campbell’s professional facade cracks under pressure, revealing his underlying stress. The dog’s name also ironically comments on Campbell’s frequent appearances before Judge DeSalvo, suggesting that while Campbell tries to control proceedings, he’s ultimately subject to higher authority—both judicial and perhaps moral.

      Answer:
      The chapter critically examines how high-profile cases become media spectacles, with Campbell actively shaping public narrative by feeding reporters carefully crafted sound bites. His manipulation of Vern Stackhouse’s sister—a reporter—demonstrates how attorneys can manufacture media interest. The reporters “on parade” outside court reduce complex family and legal issues to simplistic sound bites. This portrayal critiques how serious matters become public entertainment, with legal professionals like Campbell complicit in this transformation. The contrast between the dignified legal process and the chaotic media scrum highlights tensions between justice and publicity.

    Quotes

    • 1. “THERE MAY BE A SPECIAL CORNER of Hell for attorneys who are shamelessly self-aggrandizing, but you can bet we all are ready for our close-ups.”

      This opening line sets the cynical, self-aware tone of the narrator (an attorney) who acknowledges the hypocrisy of using a high-profile pro bono case for personal publicity while condemning such behavior in others.

      2. “Although this court tried to fashion conditions that would keep the family together, I don’t think it’s going to work until Mrs. Fitzgerald finds it possible to mentally separate her role as parent from her role as opposing counsel.”

      This quote captures the central legal conflict of the chapter - the tension between a mother’s dual roles in a lawsuit involving her child, highlighting the difficulty of separating emotional and legal obligations.

      3. “She’s a thirteen-year-old girl… You can’t expect Anna to be like a normal adult client. She doesn’t have the emotional capability to make decisions independent of her home situation.”

      A key insight about the ethical dilemma at the heart of the case, questioning whether a minor can truly make independent legal decisions when emotionally tied to family dynamics.

      4. “All she heard, when you talked, were the words no pressure. She never heard separation.”

      This powerful statement reveals how legal language can obscure real-world consequences for vulnerable clients, particularly children who may not fully grasp the implications of legal actions.

      5. “In that special corner of Hell, there’s probably a throne for those of us who try to capitalize off our pro bono work.”

      A recurring motif that bookends the chapter’s moral tension, showing the narrator’s self-awareness about exploiting humanitarian cases for personal gain while still engaging in the behavior.

    Quotes

    1. “THERE MAY BE A SPECIAL CORNER of Hell for attorneys who are shamelessly self-aggrandizing, but you can bet we all are ready for our close-ups.”

    This opening line sets the cynical, self-aware tone of the narrator (an attorney) who acknowledges the hypocrisy of using a high-profile pro bono case for personal publicity while condemning such behavior in others.

    2. “Although this court tried to fashion conditions that would keep the family together, I don’t think it’s going to work until Mrs. Fitzgerald finds it possible to mentally separate her role as parent from her role as opposing counsel.”

    This quote captures the central legal conflict of the chapter - the tension between a mother’s dual roles in a lawsuit involving her child, highlighting the difficulty of separating emotional and legal obligations.

    3. “She’s a thirteen-year-old girl… You can’t expect Anna to be like a normal adult client. She doesn’t have the emotional capability to make decisions independent of her home situation.”

    A key insight about the ethical dilemma at the heart of the case, questioning whether a minor can truly make independent legal decisions when emotionally tied to family dynamics.

    4. “All she heard, when you talked, were the words no pressure. She never heard separation.”

    This powerful statement reveals how legal language can obscure real-world consequences for vulnerable clients, particularly children who may not fully grasp the implications of legal actions.

    5. “In that special corner of Hell, there’s probably a throne for those of us who try to capitalize off our pro bono work.”

    A recurring motif that bookends the chapter’s moral tension, showing the narrator’s self-awareness about exploiting humanitarian cases for personal gain while still engaging in the behavior.

    FAQs

    1. What ethical dilemma does the narrator (Campbell Alexander) face in this chapter, and how does he justify his actions?

    Answer:
    Campbell Alexander faces an ethical dilemma regarding his self-promotion and manipulation of media attention surrounding his pro bono case. While he acknowledges there may be “a special corner of Hell” for attorneys who shamelessly self-aggrandize, he actively courts reporters, offering sound bites and ensuring the cameras focus on him. He justifies this by framing the case as nationally significant, suggesting the ruling could impact minors’ rights and stem cell research. His actions reveal a tension between professional ethics and personal ambition, as he capitalizes on the case’s high-profile nature while ostensibly working for his client’s benefit.

    Answer:
    Sara Fitzgerald admits to violating the court’s order by discussing the lawsuit with her daughter Anna, despite being explicitly instructed not to. This admission creates a pivotal moment in chambers, described as “a circus tent collapsing.” Her outburst (“Well, of course I did!”) highlights her inability to separate her role as a mother from her role as opposing counsel. This conflict undermines the legal process and demonstrates how emotional investment can compromise professional boundaries. Judge DeSalvo’s warning underscores the seriousness of her ethical violation while acknowledging the human complexity of her position.

    Answer:
    Julia challenges Campbell’s treatment of Anna as a “normal adult client,” arguing that a thirteen-year-old lacks the emotional maturity to fully comprehend the consequences of legal decisions. She provides examples of children misunderstanding court outcomes, emphasizing that Anna likely focused only on the “no pressure” aspect of the restraining order rather than the family separation it would cause. This reveals a fundamental debate about whether minors can truly give informed consent in legal matters and whether attorneys should adjust their approach when representing children versus adults. Julia advocates for a more nuanced, developmentally appropriate strategy.

    Answer:
    Judge, Campbell’s service dog, serves as both a literal and symbolic reflection of his owner’s legal maneuvering. The dog reacts to Campbell’s tension during the hearing, standing when he tenses and biting his expensive suit when he attempts to evade Julia. These actions mirror how Campbell’s professional facade cracks under pressure, revealing his underlying stress. The dog’s name also ironically comments on Campbell’s frequent appearances before Judge DeSalvo, suggesting that while Campbell tries to control proceedings, he’s ultimately subject to higher authority—both judicial and perhaps moral.

    Answer:
    The chapter critically examines how high-profile cases become media spectacles, with Campbell actively shaping public narrative by feeding reporters carefully crafted sound bites. His manipulation of Vern Stackhouse’s sister—a reporter—demonstrates how attorneys can manufacture media interest. The reporters “on parade” outside court reduce complex family and legal issues to simplistic sound bites. This portrayal critiques how serious matters become public entertainment, with legal professionals like Campbell complicit in this transformation. The contrast between the dignified legal process and the chaotic media scrum highlights tensions between justice and publicity.

    Note