MovieChat Forums > My Sister's Keeper (2009) Discussion > Reason for Anna's Refusal

Reason for Anna's Refusal

posted 12 years ago by movieinsider411
16 replies | jump to latest

I actually wish that it was the situation where Anna didn't want to donate her kidney to Kate just because she didn't want to for the reasons she said in the beginning: how she would have to be very careful for the rest of her life. I would rather it went in that direction instead of having it where she didn't want to donate just because Kate told her not to. I would have wanted to see the point of how Anna should not have had to donate her kidney to her sister if she truly didn't want to. It wasn't right for her mother to make her feel like a monster just because she didn't want to donate. I would like to see her mother donate her kidney and see how simple it is to just have one.

[–] rozzeagardner 12 years ago

I agree with you! The movie lost it's unique point of view once it was revealed that she didn't really feel that way. It was a bit of a cop out and almost as if the writers couldn't handle an ending where a sister refused to help her sister. Oh no, it simply couldn't happen!

[–] Goatlips 11 years ago

What a horrible film you two would've had them make! Besides - Anna was behaving the way you wanted her to for much of the film! Plus, Kate became heroic this way.
Your way would've had the same conclusion, only with everyone hating each other and looking selfish.

[–] morganseer 11 years ago

No, it would have shown the selfishness of parents who conceived one child for the sole purpose of using her and torturing her to keep her sister alive. Anne deserved a life of her own. You may believe we owe our life and health to someone else, but I don't.

[–] raecheer 11 years ago

it would have shown the selfishness of parents who conceived one child for the sole purpose of using her and torturing her to keep her sister alive.

I always wonder why in the movie, Anna's lawyer didn't bring this up when they were at trial. It would have been the nail in the coffin for the case; the way it was presented in the movie, Anna's mother comes off as a very sympathetic character when she says 'it's not as bad as putting a child in the ground'. The lawyer should have asked her 'why did you have a third child when you had a child that was sick with cancer and would require extensive attention?'

[–] morganseer 11 years ago

Exactly.

[–] Ginger42256 11 years ago

She shouldn't have had to donate anything from her body without her own free will. How cruel it is to birth a child just for the sole reason to harvest body parts to save another.

by solesister "get thee to a nunnery!"

[–] milo44 11 years ago

I would do anything to save my child's life .. if that meant having another child .. you bet I would .

......

I'd like a chance t' shoot at an educated man once in my life .

[–] MissCaptainObviousxx 8 years ago

Late reply...

But the flaw with this logic is, wouldn't you love the new child too? Would you love the first enough to torture and risk the life of the other? Why would the health and happiness of the first go above the other?

That seems like an awfully selfish thing to do. Not something a loving parent would do. Not to mention they could have lost both kids doing this (if the "donor" died from all the "donating" and the sick one didn't respond/relapsed.)

I find the concept incredibly selfish and cruel.

[–] milo44 8 years ago

There is nothing that I wouldn't do to save my child's life .. I don't care what is was .. even to trade my life for theirs .. We all have our own opinions .. don't we .. And how many children do you have ? ... Let me guess .

"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".

[–] MissCaptainObviousxx 8 years ago

Look I understand that a parent's love for a child is unconditional... and that's exactly my point. Would you really be able to have a child and sacrifice their life for the other? If your "love for your child" is the reason, where is that love for the second child? You don't have to have a kid to understand that every child's life is important.

While you're asking if I have children, do you have more than one child? Would you chop one of them up to save the other?

It really should matter when or how you conceive a child, sacrificing one to save the other is *beep* up, end of story. Especially if it took place like it did in this story where they raised and got to know the child.

Edit, trading your own life for your child's is NOT the same as trading one of your OWN children's lives for another. Does only one child get your unconditional love? Or all of them except the one you had for body parts?

[–] raecheer 11 years ago

I'm curious about the hospital, would they honestly take a kidney from a perfectly healthy child (Anna) which is a dangerous procedure, and put it into a child that had so many other medical problems (Kate).

[–] Ginger42256 11 years ago

I believe they would. You are free to be a donor at your own free will if you are a match and chose to help save someones life if you so decided to do so.

by solesister "get thee to a nunnery!"

[–] morganseer 10 years ago

But children, by default, don't have free will because they don't have full understanding of consequences for their decisions. We base statutory rape laws on that assumption. Why would we not have the same standard for organ harvesting from children?

[–] hayleythorpe95 10 years ago

In the case of medical procedures, the parents decide, but of course they talk to the kids about it, which Anna's parents never did. They just said "you're going to do this to save your sister ok? Good."

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hppg 8 years ago

I think that underestimates the sisterly bond that they had, despite the reason for Anna's creation. She wasn't a bitch so she would happily donate.