My Sister’s Keeper
WEDNESDAY CAMPBELL
by Picoult, JodieThe chapter opens with attorney Campbell Alexander in a tense courtroom scene, grappling with personal and professional conflicts. His client, Anna Fitzgerald, remains unresponsive, while Julia, the woman he loves, is about to take the stand. The atmosphere is charged with unspoken tension, underscored by Anna’s refusal to pick up his dropped pen, signaling her anger. The judge allows a psychiatrist, Dr. Beata Neaux, to testify out of order, setting the stage for a pivotal exchange about Anna’s capacity to make medical decisions regarding her sister Kate.
Dr. Neaux testifies that Anna, as a 13-year-old, lacks the maturity to make an independent decision about donating a kidney to Kate. She argues that Anna would benefit psychologically from the donation, citing studies that show child donors often feel like “superheroes” and gain higher self-esteem. The psychiatrist emphasizes the importance of parental guidance, suggesting Anna’s parents should make the decision for her. The judge and Julia appear to take her testimony seriously, while Campbell dismisses it as “psychobabble bullshit,” highlighting his skepticism of the expert’s conclusions.
Campbell cross-examines Dr. Neaux, turning her arguments against Sara Fitzgerald, Anna’s mother. He questions whether Sara, who is deeply invested in Kate’s survival, can make an unbiased decision either. By applying the psychiatrist’s own logic, he suggests Sara is psychologically compromised, acting more like a “donor” than a parent. The courtroom erupts as Campbell challenges the assumption that parents always know best, forcing Dr. Neaux to concede that Sara’s judgment may also be clouded by her emotional attachment to Kate’s well-being.
The chapter concludes with Campbell’s pointed critique of the family dynamics, arguing that parental authority isn’t infallible. His closing remarks underscore the moral complexity of the case, leaving the judge and Sara visibly unsettled. The exchange reveals the deeper conflict between individual autonomy and familial obligation, with Campbell positioning himself as the lone voice of reason in a room swayed by emotional appeals. The scene sets up further tension as the legal battle over Anna’s agency intensifies.
FAQs
1. What is the main conflict presented in this courtroom scene, and how does it reflect the broader ethical dilemma at the heart of the chapter?
Answer:
The central conflict revolves around whether 13-year-old Anna Fitzgerald should be compelled to donate a kidney to her sister Kate. Dr. Neaux testifies that Anna is psychologically incapable of making an independent medical decision and would benefit from donating, while defense attorney Alexander counters that Sara Fitzgerald (the mother) is equally compromised in her judgment due to her emotional investment in Kate’s survival. This reflects the broader ethical dilemma of bodily autonomy versus familial obligation, and who has the right to make life-altering medical decisions for minors.2. Analyze the effectiveness of Campbell Alexander’s cross-examination strategy. How does he turn Dr. Neaux’s own arguments against her?
Answer:
Alexander employs a brilliant rhetorical strategy by applying Dr. Neaux’s psychological framework to Sara Fitzgerald herself. He establishes that Sara (1) defines her self-worth through Kate’s health, (2) makes decisions based on short-term outcomes (keeping Kate alive), and (3) would psychologically benefit from Kate’s survival—the same criteria used to argue Anna’s incompetence. This parallel structure exposes the hypocrisy in claiming parents are objective decision-makers while children are not, effectively undermining the psychiatrist’s credibility through her own logic.3. What does the exchange of notes between Campbell and Anna reveal about their relationship dynamic and Anna’s state of mind?
Answer:
The humorous note-passing about Dr. Neaux’s name (creating wordplay like “Dr. Neaux-Chance-Buster”) shows their shared dark humor and intellectual connection despite the tense courtroom atmosphere. However, Anna’s follow-up note (“I’m still mad at you”) reveals lingering resentment, suggesting Campbell has previously acted against her wishes. This complex dynamic shows Anna as both a typical teenager (playful, stubborn) and an unwilling participant in a life-or-death situation, caught between trusting her attorney and resisting his strategies.4. Evaluate Dr. Neaux’s psychological argument about donor siblings. What are the strengths and weaknesses of her position as presented?
Answer:
Dr. Neaux’s strengths include citing legitimate psychological research about donor siblings experiencing increased self-esteem and family cohesion when donations succeed. However, her argument weakens by: (1) ignoring potential trauma if Kate dies post-donation, (2) dismissing Anna’s stated wishes as developmentally immature without addressing why parental wishes aren’t equally compromised, and (3) presenting an overly optimistic view that doesn’t account for resentment or family dysfunction. Her testimony appears one-sided, focusing only on positive outcomes while minimizing risks—a point Alexander exploits during cross-examination.5. How does the narrative perspective shape our understanding of the courtroom drama? What biases does it reveal?
Answer:
The first-person perspective from Campbell Alexander’s viewpoint creates inherent bias—we see Dr. Neaux’s testimony as “psychobabble bullshit” and the judge as gullible for taking it seriously. This colors readers to sympathize with Anna’s autonomy fight. However, the narration also reveals Campbell’s personal stakes (his feelings for Julia) that may cloud his professional judgment. The perspective brilliantly immerses us in the legal strategy while reminding us that even the narrator has blind spots, mirroring the story’s central question about who can truly be objective in emotionally charged decisions.
Quotes
1. “IT’S GETTING HARDER AND HARDER to be a bastard.”
This opening line sets the protagonist’s cynical, self-aware tone while hinting at the moral complexities he faces in the courtroom drama. It introduces the chapter’s central tension between professional detachment and personal involvement.
2. “If Anna donates a kidney that saves her sister’s life, it’s a tremendous gift—and not just to Kate. Because Anna herself will continue to be part of the intact family by which she defines herself, rather than a family that’s lost one of its members.”
Dr. Neaux’s testimony represents the prosecution’s psychological argument for forced donation, framing the act as beneficial to both sisters. This quote encapsulates the controversial “greater good” perspective that the protagonist strongly opposes.
3. “Children who serve as donors have higher self-esteem, and feel more important within the family structure. They consider themselves superheroes, because they can do the one thing no one else can.”
This controversial claim by Dr. Neaux sparks the protagonist’s skepticism, highlighting the chapter’s ethical debate about medical coercion and the romanticization of child organ donation.
4. “Anna’s current state of mind is driven by the short-term consequences. She doesn’t understand how this decision is really going to play out.”
The psychiatrist’s dismissal of Anna’s autonomy becomes a key point of contention, representing the adult world’s tendency to override children’s agency based on developmental assumptions.
5. “Parents need to be parents… But sometimes that isn’t good enough.”
The protagonist’s closing rebuttal delivers the chapter’s central thesis - that parental authority has limits, especially when it conflicts with a child’s bodily autonomy. This powerful conclusion challenges traditional family power dynamics.