MovieChat Forums > My Sister's Keeper (2009) Discussion > What a terrible thing to do!

What a terrible thing to do!

posted 12 years ago by a_rarden
8 replies | jump to latest

I actually haven't seen the movie yet... I was never interested in it before because I never remembered seeing any trailers for it and never knew what it was about. But after reading the description just now, I'm putting it at the top of my Netflix list!

Having one child PURELY to keep the other one alive!? What terrible pressure to put on a child! And the idea of all this being taken to court.

Sure, millions of people out there love their siblings more than enough to donate their body parts to them, but geez...she was still so young, and to have this be EXPECTED of her...to know that this was the sole reason she was ever brought on this earth. *quivers* I'm furious just thinking about what I'm going to see and hear in this movie!

(Sorry if you find it "insulting" for someone to criticize and rant over something they haven't seen, but this is my pre-viewing opinion. I'll respond to this and give my thought after I see it. PLEASE, in the meantime, no major spoilers!)

[–] hppg 12 years ago

Do you want people to respond or do you want no spoilers?

They had her thinking it would be a one-off, obviously. It wasn't. Whether it's ethical or not to keep going back for more donations...I don't know. But they couldn't let their other child die and that was their driving factor. The film actually does a good job of showing that tension and showing how keeping the other girl alive at all costs almost becomes a crusade for the mother. Of course, once the younger sister is old enough to understand, she wants to donate, because she loves her sister and they actually get on very well.

[–] a_rarden 12 years ago

Do you want people to respond or do you want no spoilers?

Sorry I wasn't clear; I actually wasn't planning on coming back to read any responses at all until I watched the movie. I do want people to respond.

I got the DVD and it was so scratched up that I couldn't watch anything beyond 45 minutes...still waiting on the replacement DVD to show up. But I was assuming it would end the way you mentioned in the spoilers.

From what I saw, obviously, the mom's priority was keeping the daughter alive. But it's just plain sad that she wasn't willing to consider the fact that her other daughter may or may not want this done to her. Yes, wanting to be a cheerleader is a somewhat selfish reason to not want to save your sister, but it's still her body, and the idea of not letting the daughter decide for herself at her age was just wrong...even if she was conceived for this purpose.

It almost feels comparison to the topic of abortion: where do you draw the line; when is she considered a person who deserves rights? And like the topic of abortion, the topic of parental control over body rights may be one where you feel one way or the other, and nothing and no one will ever convince you to change your mind. But I've certainly never thought about it, and I'm interested in hearing what other people think about this.

**Again, don't worry about posting spoilers...I'll avoid coming back to this page until I see the rest of the movie**

[–] hppg 12 years ago

Yes, it's a very interesting ethical dilemma. How far do you go to save the life of your child, and when does that stop becoming loving parenting and start being all-consuming? I think the film did a good job of showing the various attitudes, the book probably more so.

Generally, people will want to save their siblings, but what happens if they don't? Are they allowed to make that choice? If a child says no to an operation because of fear of pain, but don't fully understand death, is that really a fully-informed decision?

There are no answers to these questions btw. I'd do pretty much anything to save my sister, but I am older, and that wasn't expected to always be my job. You can see how resentment would set in fast - except in this case, it didn't, because the girls loved each other, but it could happen in another family. Also, I think part of the issue was nobody ever asked Anna what her choice would have been to allow her to say "YES! I'll save my sister I would love to!", they just assumed she would.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Brommabo 12 years ago

I agree it's a pretty bad thing to do. Forcing your child to donate an organ.
I must admit if I would have been in this situation I would have done the same thing though. I would have another child to be a match and I would love them both the same. I don't know what I would do about the kidney though.
If Kate had never asked Anna to sue her parents I think that Anna would have wanted the give Kate the Kidney. It's still a big sacrifice for a child though.

[–] jicarillagirl 10 years ago

I AM a mother, and never in a million years would I have a child just for the sake of being a donor. NEVER. It was no one's fault that Kate had cancer, but her sister paid the price. The mother was selfish and cruel. And the doctor was unethical for suggesting such a horrible thing in the first place. That is my take on it. My opinion.

[–] Helenlaurence 10 years ago

This is so hard to even think about... I actually have no idea what I'd do.
But I know I would give both children a choice.

[–] DCompton86 10 years ago

In honesty, the parents are terrible for having another child to basically be spare parts for the first. This is one of the driving factors that keeps cloning illegal - what if people started doing this? Is it fair to take life from one person to save another....especially when the best it could do is allow the older daughter a few years. If she has that kind of cancer, the kidney probably wouldn't buy her 5-10 years at most. Did they plan to go back and ask Anna to die by donating her other kidney? I know that in the books Anna dies and that is how Kate gets the kidney, but honestly they only bought their daughter a few more years. Was it worth it really worth it?

"It's better to be hated for who you are than be loved for who you aren't."