MovieChat Forums > My Sister's Keeper (2009) Discussion > Am I the only one who thinks the mother ...

Am I the only one who thinks the mother is a B***H?


... seriously.. its a freaking living CHILD.... what kind of a monster would do that crap?

reply

That's exactly why I like the movie ending better. Comeuppance is also a bitch, lol.

reply

Look at it from the mothers point of view. To her its a lose lose situation. Every option sucks. She got tunnel vision, she couldn't see past keeping her daughter alive. Yes it sucks but Kate's existence and survival, in the time line, came before Anna's. And in truth, the mother was not forcing Anna to do anything, we are told Anna makes this point in an effort to abide by her sisters wish to die. Anna would have given her a kidney, but Kate asked her not to.

The mother was not trying to be cruel or disregard Anna's feelings, she just couldn't see past her dying child. And in all fairness, who the hell could? She was trying to do everything in her power to keep Kate alive, and was so blinded that she didn't realize her family was suffering. She couldn't conceptualize the thought that they were suffering while Kate suffered. Who in their right mind things, oh if i let one child die the family will eventually go on and be okay. She's not looking at Kate live an infected limb that needs to be severed in order to save the rest of the body, she can't detach herself like that. There in lies the entire problem.

She's not a monster, she's a mother. And what mother do you know is going to just let her kid die without fighting with every tool she has. So no, not a monster...just another person in a horribly undesirably situation who was trying to fix it and make it work

reply

Rink, wake up. She's got THREE kids and acts like there's only one. She may not be a monster, but she's a monstrous BITCH.

reply

"monstrous bitch"...that word is being used a lot lately. It's amazing to me how what used to be swears make there way into the lexicon.

At any rate, that 'monstrous bitch' had a career (lawyer) and two beautiful children, a girl and a boy. She loved them both immensely. She had everything (as indicated in the movie and certainly in the book) two people could want -- a very loving marriage, and two beautiful children. Until one day, that 'monstrous bitch' woke up and found her beautiful daughter sick in bed. When you have a child, you never think about that child as ever being terminal.

After many misdiagnosis (in the book) they finally found out the child had cancer and maybe, just maybe, according to one physician, they could conceive another child who would be a match to save her beloved daughter.

Seemed simple at the time. Yet when you think about it, it's playing with fire. And it was. As I'm sure you heard the doctor state, "Don't say I told you this", and when the dad asked, "How do we know it will be a match" he said they could be sure of that. Which means i.e., petri dish conceptions and tests to make sure the child implanted in the mother's womb would be a match. It also meant throwing away the 'no goods'.

Think about what that 'monstrous bitch' has been through now.

Walk a mile in her shoes. Not Cameron Diaz's shoes, but in that mother's shoes.

reply

But the awful thing is that the mother becomes selfish. Not wanting your child to die is one thing, but forcing a child to suffer for years because you can't let go is something else. I've seen people do crazy things like force an ill person to get up (just like in the movie) or try to force them to eat, supposedly all for their own good. In reality, it's for the benefit of the mother or whomever is forcing them. It's cruel.



Rachel

reply

I'm all for doing anything to help your child but CREATING another child to basically be a living organ donor is sick and the fact that anyone in the world would do this is disgusting.

I'd rather die than know i was responsible for something so hideous. That child wasn't wanted, she was needed. A means to cure a sibling.

reply

That's the thing, she's treating her other daughter like a Tool to be used.

reply

She's not a monster, she's a mother. And what mother do you know is going to just let her kid die without fighting with every tool she has. So no, not a monster...just another person in a horribly undesirably situation who was trying to fix it and make it work
Yes, exactly! What Anna's mom did to her was absolutely not okay, but I understand why she did it. You really can't judge someone and call them a monster until you've been in their shoes. She's a MOTHER and her child was DYING in one of the worst ways possible. Can you even imagine that kind of pain?

reply

I can´t imagine a kind of pain that grants the right to hurt other people.

reply

I *beep* hated her. She's so stupid and selfish.

reply

I tried not to hate the mother but to hate what she was doing. I also wished that it had not taken the father years to man up and take Anna's side so to speak. To create someone to be an organ donor is horrible as if their life and their dreams don't matter. In reality, if I had been Anna I would probably never had any real relationship with my mother even after Kate died since I would have known that while I was created in love (for Kate) that none of that love was directed towards me.

reply

As a mother myself, I don't think she was a monsterous bitch. She was short sighted, misguided, and desperate. I think she never saw Anna's sacrafice as anything more than familial responsibility. It's a scarafice she herself would willingly make and she couldn't comprehend why her daughther wouldn't do the same.

reply

Yeah, you would have been happy if she let one daughter die. She was in an impossible situation, where you cannot do the right thing, you can only do more wrong or less wrong. She was a mother who would do anything for her children, she was willing to sacrifice everything and anything, this seemed the only possible reaction to her. She did not understand that she needed to let go.

Calling her a bitch for that is just stupid.

reply

she was willing to sacrifice everything and anything


And anyone. She was willing to sacrifice her youngest daughter's life.

So, Anna has one kidney taken, no big deal - she has 2 right? But then she would have to lead a careful life for the rest of her days, and would be at risk herself.

The most probable outcome though is that Kate wouldn't be magically cured from everything, her cancer wouldn't be gone. (Unlike in the books fairy tale ending)

Where would this mother draw the line when it comes to the life of Anna?

What if Kate needed a lung next? Anna has 2 of those doesn't she? She could survive with just one, and she knows what would happen to her sister if she doesn't give it to her.

What if it's Kate's heart that gives out and requires a transplant next? Anna only has one of those, and without it she's dead. But then, she was only created to be a spare parts depot for her sister wasn't she?

When did this Mother ever treat her second daughter as a daughter of hers? When does the life and the problems of her other 2 children ever matter to her?

reply

The most probable outcome though is that Kate wouldn't be magically cured from everything, her cancer wouldn't be gone.


I believe Kate's doctor mentioned this in the movie.

Out of curiosity (if anyone knows) what are the guidelines for being considered for organ transplants. I would think that the hospital would have reservations about operating on a perfectly healthy child and taking a kidney to put in a child that had numerous other medical problems. Was it a matter of the parents (Anna's) signing off on it making the transplant okay?

reply

I agree,

Trying to justify it by saying she is a mother who loves her child is like trying to justify a mother who trades one child off to be abused while the other is protected because of whatever reason you give. Motives don't matter, they were both awful, awful parents.


R.I.P Big sister"

R.I.P Angel, you fought a good fight, I will miss you, I love you.

reply

Agreed, Sara was a terrible mother to all three of her children.

The doctor alone should have put a stop to things once it came down to a kidney transplant. There is no doctor I know who would be comfortable with an 11 year old child donating a kidney to a sibling diagnosed with incurable cancer.

Granted, if there was a compatible sibling that somehow had both of his or her kidney damaged and there was a good chance of survival. Then they might go for it, but in a terminally ill cancer patient, who only chance would be cancer remission? Not a chance, that would fall under the do no harm oath.

Typically any major operation, which involves minors under the age of 18, is seriously look at under a microscope by the courts before ever considered.

Plus, you have to have a legally approved court order before proceeding, so even if Anna hadn't sought legal help. It still would have been a question for the courts to decide, and most likely in the case of incurable cancer, it would have been a no.

reply