Annotation2 (revised) Do men have the right to deprive the creatures' right to protect their body?

“My Sister’s Keeper” is a novel written by Judy Picoult in 2004. The subject in this novel is so controversial that more and more people put emphasis on it. We start to think over that whether it is legal or not for men to save one life by creating and using the other life with specific purposes. The main character in this novel, Anna, is one donator, who donates part of her body to save her older sister, Kate, since the moment she was being born. Anna’s birth was not a gift from God. Actually, her birth was elaborately planned by her parents after Kate was being diagnosed of APL (acute promyelocytic leukemia). When she is 13-year-old, Anna decides to protest for herself, and the only forceful way is to sue her parents, Sara and Brian. Anna’s ultimate demand is to “gets to make all future medical decisions”. This is the only method for Anna to protect her kidney and her own body.
It seems both natural and right for Anna to provide part of her body or even organ to cure Kate since she is planned to birth. But is that legal? Or we should say, is that reasonable for creators to use the creation in any kinds of use, no matter this creature has emotion or not, since he/she has the power to control this creation’s life? After reading “My Sister’s Keeper”, readers are compelled to face this question. It becomes far more complex and dilemmatic because the creature here is not an inanimate object but a human being with her own will, intelligence and sensibility. Indeed, Anna is born to save Kate that makes her shoulder the stress of donation no matter she is willing or not. But here we should focus on Anna’s humanity. As Anna’s counselor says, “Anna Fitzgerald’s life she has been medically treated for her sister’s good, not her own. “The operations of donation are actually gone against of Anna’s will. Sara’s demands for Anna to donate cord blood, lymphocytes or even one of her kidney are violate the morals and the basic demands of humanity. Since Kate has the right to struggle for her life, and equally Anna has the right to protect her freedom of person.
“The fact that the only reason I was born was as a harvest crop for Kate.” It is Anna’s shout and anger from her deep heart because of the unfair treatment. There should be no reasons or excuses for any people to deprive the other man’s right of protecting himself. The unfair and barbaric deeds should not appear in the high civilization modern world today.

Annotation 2: My sister's keeper

Reference:
Jodi, Picoult (2009).My sister's keeper. London: Hodder Paperbacks


‧APL= acute(急性的) promyelocytic(早幼粒細胞) leukemia(白血病)=急性前骨髓白血病

Dr. Farquad nods. ”Leukemic is a blood cancer.”
“Think of bone marrow as a child care center for developing cells. Healthy bodies make blood cells that stay in the marrow until they're mature enough to go out and fight disease or clot or carry oxygen or whatever it is that they’re supposed to do. In a person with leukemia, the childcare-center doors are opened too early. Immature blood cells wind up circulating, unable to do their job. It’s not always odd to see promyelocytes in a CBC, but when we checked Kate’s under a microscope, we could see abnormalities.” She looks in turn at each of us. “I’ll need to do a bone marrow aspiration to confirm this, but it seems that Kate has acute promyelocytic leukemia.”…
“APL is a very rare subgroup of myeloid leukemia. Only about twelve hundred people a year are diagnosed with it. The rare of survival for APL patients is twenty to thirty percent, if treatment starts immediately.” P31-32
「想像骨髓是個發展細胞的兒童保育中心。健康的身體會製造血球，這些血球住在骨髓裡，等到他們發展成熟之後才出去跟疾病對抗，或凝結或運送氧器或做些它們該做的事。罹患白血病的人就像兒童保育中心的門太早開。不成熟的血球終止循環，無法做它們該做的工作。在檢查血球數值的時發現前骨髓細胞，也就是未成熟的白血球，這並不奇怪。可是當我們在顯微鏡下觀察凱特的前骨髓細胞時，我們可以看出它是畸形的。」她輪流看我們夫妻倆，「我會抽取凱特的骨髓來確定，但看起來凱特似乎罹患了急性前骨髓白血病。」
「急性前骨髓白血病，APL，是骨髓性白血病很少見的子群。一年只有一千兩百個人被診斷出罹患這種病。APL的病人如果一發現馬上開始治療，存活率大約是百分之二十到三十。」

My own blood seeping into my sister’s vein’s; the nurses holding me down to stick me for white cells Kate might borrow; the doctor saying they didn’t get enough the first time around. The bruises and the deep bone ache after I gave up my marrow; the shots that sparked more stem cells in me, so that there’d be extra for my sister. The fact that I’m not sick, but I might as well be. The fact that the only reason I was born was as a harvest crop for Kate. The fact that even now, a major decision about me is being made, and no one’s bothered to ask the one person who most deserves in to speak her opinion.
There’s way too much to explain, and so I do the best I can. ”It’s not God. Just my parents,” I say. “I want to sue them for the rights to my own body.” P18
我的血必須不時輸進我姊姊的血管；護士必須壓著我，抽取我的白血球以備借給凱特；醫生說他們第一次抽取的量還不夠。我捐出骨髓後報受瘀青與深度的骨頭疼痛之苦；他們得打更多針，抽取更多我的幹細胞，寧可多抽些讓我姊姊有多餘的幹細胞可用。事實是我沒生病，可是我可能也病了。事實是我之所以被生下來的唯一理由是做凱特的藥糧。事實是即使是現在，他們已經做了一個關於我的重要決定，可是沒人問過我這個最該表達意見的人一聲。
要解釋的事情太多了，我只能言簡意賅的說。「我不是要控告上帝，我是要控告我的父母。」我說，「我要控告他們奪走我的身體使用權。」


“The state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, family court for providence county. In re: Anna Fitzgerald, A.K.A. Jane Doe. Petition for Medical emancipation.”
“That she gets to make all future medical decisions”.”
“That she not be forced to submit to medical treatment which is not in her nest interests or for her benefit”.
“That she not be required to undergo any more treatment for the benefit of her sister, Kate.” P49-50
普洛維頓斯郡家事法庭。原告：安娜．費茲傑羅，亦名安達美朵。
訴請解除她的醫療決定權。
將來她得以擁有她自身的醫療決定權。
她不能被迫屈從於對她自身的利益和福祉有影響的醫療行為。
她不必為了她姊姊凱特的利益而接受任何醫療行為。


I came because without her, it’s hard to remember who I am. P136
我來是因為，沒有她，我很難記得我是誰。

“Anna Fitzgerald’s life she has been medically treated for her sister’s good, not her own. No one doubts Sara Fitzgerald’s love for all her children, or the decision’s she’s made that have prolonged Kate’s life. But today we have to doubt the decision she’s made for this child.”
P285
安娜．費茲傑羅的一生都是為了醫治她姊姊而活，而不是為她自己。沒有人懷疑莎拉．費茲傑羅愛她所有的孩子，或她決定延長凱特的生命有什麼錯。可是我們今天必須懷疑，她為她這個孩子安娜所做的決定是否偏頗。

Annotation1 (revised) Dilemma: Conservative safty or beneficial riskiness?

1. Because there was only one classmate gave me a feedback, I just add some context to answer her suggestion. Here she mentioned that there are not only flaws but also advantages from bio-technology. Because my standpoint is to against the way human control the power of lives, I write the last part to support my stand that there are actually high risks there if men try to control the power of lives. I also change my title of this annotation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dilemma: Conservative safty or beneficial riskiness?

Jurassic Park” was a science fiction adventure film which filmed in 1993. The main issue of Jurassic Park is about whether men have the right or not to play the role of God. In this movie, scientists try hard to recreate dinosaurs. With high technology and biotechnology, scientists take bloods from mosquitoes inside the ambers which become fossils. Men successfully create extinctive dinosaurs 65 million years ago. It seems that human do control the power and secret of gene to overtop the whole ecosystem. Ecology is no more mysterious and delicate at all because human successfully break the code of eco- system. But is that true? Do men really control the power and rank above nature?
In the forepart of the movie, the birth of dinosaur is just like a miracle that enchanted all the characters except the mathematician Dr. Malcolm. Without other characters’ passion, Dr. Ian Malcolm shows distrustful attitude to the whole action and idea in the very beginning. “If there's one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new places, and it crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously…but there it is.” Here Dr. Malcolm plays a role for audience to see things beyond scientists’ superficial and short victory from a detached way. The rational distrust challenge modern technology and remind audience that life is unique. It has no limitation that men cannot even try to change it in any unnatural way.
It is not the main problem to discuss whether men have the right or not to control the power of natural in this issue, instead, the most important question is, do men have the ability to control this kind of power and well-arrange it? From the example of the film Jurassic Park, scientists can recreate dinosaurs with high tech, but it doesn’t mean that men can arrange this power in a proper way. The billionaire investor, John Hammond tries to fight for his behavior and idea, “Our scientists have done things which nobody has ever done before.” But as Dr. Malcolm responses, it is “wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun”. No men can promise there won’t be any dangers after doing these huge changes. Most of the time human do the so-called invention is not for the real benefits for environment but actually hurt it through the improper way. In Jurassic Park, people cannot even image how catastrophic these creations cause that make their lives all in danger. If there is no absolute safe presupposition, and there won’t be any real absolute safe presupposition exists, then men have no right to play the role of God. “What you call discovery…I call the rape of the natural world.” Dr. Malcolm’s word perfectly defines men's behaviors which originate from ambition and desire to conquer the natural.

The dilemma between innovation of bio-technology and the danger of no ability to control the power is the most radical and urgently problem men have to face. There are advantages that benefit people’s lives from these innovations that we can’t deny, but still more unknown and uncontrollable dangers are hidden in the unexplored field. Should we ignore the potential problems just for the present benefits? Conservative attitude is safer than beneficial riskiness.

Annotation1:Jurassic Park(Subtitles)

“Jurassic Park” was a science fiction adventure film which filmed in 1993. The main issue of Jurassic Park is about whether men have the right or not to play the role of God. In this movie, scientists try hard to recreate dinosaurs. With high technology and biotechnology, scientists take bloods from mosquitoes inside the ambers which become fossils. Men successfully create extinctive dinosaurs 65 million years ago. It seems that human do control the power and secret of gene to overtop the whole ecosystem. Ecology is no more mysterious and delicate at all because human successfully break the code of eco- system. But is that true? Do men really control the power and rank above nature?

In the forepart of the movie, the birth of dinosaur is just like a miracle that enchanted all the characters except the mathematician Dr. Malcolm. Without other characters’ passion, Dr. Ian Malcolm shows distrustful attitude to the whole action and idea in the very beginning. “If there's one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained.

Life breaks free, expands to new places, and it crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously…but there it is.” Here Dr. Malcolm plays a role for audience to see things beyond scientists’ superficial and short victory from a detached way. The rational distrust challenge modern technology and remind audience that life is unique. It has no limitation that men cannot even try to change it in any unnatural way.

It is not the main problem to discuss whether men have the right or not to control the power of natural in this issue, instead, the most important question is, do men have the ability to control this kind of power and well-arrange it? From the example of the film Jurassic Park, scientists can recreate dinosaurs with high tech, but it doesn’t mean that men can arrange this power in a proper way. The billionaire investor, John Hammond tries to fight for his behavior and idea, “Our scientists have done things which nobody has ever done before.” But as Dr. Malcolm responses, it is “wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun”. No men can promise there won’t be any dangers after doing these huge changes. Most of the time human do the so-called invention is not for the real benefits for environment but actually hurt it through the improper way. In Jurassic Park, people cannot even image how catastrophic these creations cause that make their lives all in danger. If there is no absolute safe presupposition, and there won’t be any real absolute safe presupposition exists, then men have no right to play the role of God. “What you call discovery…I call the rape of the natural world.” Dr. Malcolm’s word perfectly defines men's behaviors which originate from ambition and desire to conquer the natural.

Subtitles

(25:17)
Mr. DNA:
100 million years ago,
there were mosquitoes just like today.
一億年前的蚊子就像今天的蚊子

And just like today,
they fed on the blood of animals.
像今天一樣吸動物的血

Even dinosaurs.甚至吸恐龍的血
Sometimes, after biting a dinosaur, mosquitoes would land on the branch
of a tree and get stuck in the sap.
有時候吸了恐龍血之後，蚊子會停在樹枝上被樹液包住


After a long time, the tree sap
would get hard and become fossilised, just like a dinosaur bone,
preserving the mosquito inside.
時間一久樹液硬化成了化石，就像恐龍的骨骸樹液保存了蚊子

This fossilised tree sap, which we call amber, waited for millions of years
with the mosquito inside until Jurassic Park scientists came along.
樹液化石又稱為琥珀，包住蚊子等了幾百萬年等到侏儸紀公園的科學家前來

Using sophisticated techniques,
they extract the preserved blood from the mosquito,
and bingo: dino DNA!
他們高科技抽取蚊子吸的血，中獎一樣獲得恐龍DNA!

A full DNA strand contains
three billion genetic codes.
完整的DNA所有三十億遺傳密碼

If we looked at screens like these
once a second for eight hours a day, it'd take two years
to look at the entire DNA strand.
這樣一秒鐘看一種一天看八小時，看完DNA索也要兩年

It's that long.
Since it's so old, it's full of holes.
那麼長的DNA索由於它很老所以盡是漏洞

Now that's where our geneticists
take over.
這就要我們的遺傳學家接手了

Thinking machine super-computers
and gene sequencers break down the strand in minutes.
思想的機器超級電腦，基因順序在幾分鐘內破解

And virtual-reality displays show our geneticists the gaps
in the DNA sequence.
現出了DNA序中的斷層

We used the complete DNA of a frog to fill in the holes and complete the code.
我們用青蛙的DNA序來補漏洞，拼出完整的密碼

Whew! And now,
we can make a baby dinosaur.
現在我們能創造恐龍寶寶了









(29:22)
John Hammond:
They imprint on the first creature they come in contact with. Helps them to trust me.
她們對最先接觸的人印象最深。對，幫助她們來信任我。

I've been present for the birth
of every creature on this island.
島上的小東西出世我都在場。

Dr. Malcolm:
Surely not the ones
that have bred in the wild.
當然，在野地出生的不算。

Wu:
Actually they can't breed in the wild. Population control is one
of our security precautions. There's no unauthorised breeding
in Jurassic Park.
其實她們不能在野地繁殖，數量控制試本園的安全項目。侏儸紀公園不准私生恐龍。

Dr. Malcolm:
How do you know they can't breed?
你怎麼知道她們不能繁殖?

Wu:
Because all the animals
in Jurassic Park are female. We've engineered them that way.
因為園裡的動物都是母的。我們精心設計的。

John Hammond:
There you are.
你出來了!

Ellie:
Oh, my God. Look at that.
天啊你們看!

Alan:
Blood temperature seems like
about high 80s, maybe.
血溫似乎有華氏80多度。

John Hammond:
Wu?
小吳?

Wu:
91.
91度

Ellie:
Homeothermic? It holds that temperature?
是恆溫動物?它能保持這溫度?

Wu:
Yes.
是。

Dr. Malcolm:
But, again, how do you know
they're all female? What, does somebody go out in the park
and pull up the dinosaurs' skirts?
再請問你，怎麼知道都是母的? 有人到園裡掀恐龍的裙子看嗎?

Wu:
We control their chromosomes.
It's really not that difficult. All vertebrate embryos
are inherently female. They just require an extra hormone
given at the right developmental stage to make them male.We simply deny them that.

我們控制她們的染色體，其實也不難
所有脊椎胚胎天生是母的，只需要在發展時期適時加所需的賀爾蒙就變成公的。我們就是不給她們。

Ellie:
Deny them that?
不給她們?

Dr. Malcolm:
John, the kind of control
you're attempting is not possible.
約翰，你嘗試要控制的事是不可能的。
If there's one thing the history
of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained.
進化史如果有教我們什麼，就是生命不受抑制。
Life breaks free. Expands to new places, and it crashes through barriers,
painfully, maybe even dangerously…but there it is.
生命是奔放的。生命開拓新的領域衝破障礙，有痛苦甚至危險…但是生命就是如此。

John Hammond:
There it is.
生命在此!

Wu:
You're implying that a group composed
entirely of female animals will breed.
你是指全是母的也會繁殖?

Dr. Malcolm:
No, I'm simply saying that life finds a way.
不是，我只是說生命會找出路











(34:54)
Dr. Malcolm:
The lack of humility before nature
that's being displayed here staggers me.
對大自然缺乏謙卑叫人怕怕!

Lawyer:
I think things are a little different
than you and I had feared.
但是這跟你我所怕的不同。

Dr. Malcolm:
I know. They're a lot worse.
我知道，更可怕。

Lawyer:
Now, wait a second, we haven't even seen the park yet--
我們還沒參觀園區…

John Hammond:
Donald, let him talk. There's no reason,
I want to hear every viewpoint.
不要緊，唐納，讓他說，我要聽各方意見，真的。

Dr. Malcolm:
Don't you see the danger, John,
inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power's the most awesome force
the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun.
你沒看見這樣做的危險嗎?遺傳是地球上最可怕的力量，你等於是小孩偷玩大人的槍。

Lawyer:
It's hardly appropriate to start hurling--
事前談危險並不恰當

Dr. Malcolm:
If I may. I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power you're using here.
It didn't require any discipline to attain it.

容我說句話，你在此用的科學力量問題在於它沒有任何約束
You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves so you don't take any responsibility for it.
你讀別人的研究然後採取行動，你的知識不是自己的，所以你不負任何責任。
You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could. Before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunch box, and now you're selling it
你站在天才們的肩膀上盡快地去做成一些事，還沒弄清楚已申請到專利，然後包裝，現在快要銷售了。

John Hammond:
I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody has ever done before.
你對我們的批評有失公道，我們的科學家們成就了前無古人的創舉，

Dr. Malcolm:
But your scientists were so preoccupied
with whether they could. They didn't stop to think if they should.
但是你的專家只知道埋頭硬幹，沒思考應不應該做。

John Hammond:
Condors. Condors are on the verge of extinction. If I created condors on this island, you wouldn't have anything to say.
禿鷹，禿鷹正瀕臨絕種，如果我在島上造一群禿鷹，你就沒話說了!

Dr. Malcolm:
This isn't some species that was obliterated by deforestation or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot and nature selected them for extinction.
這個物種並非因為砍伐森林或建水壩而絕種的。恐龍曾經有機會生存，是大自然要他們滅絕。

John Hammond:
I don't understand this Luddite attitude.Especially from a scientist.
竟然有人因噎廢食，尤其還是個科學家。
How can we stand in the light of discovery and not act?
我們在發明的光照耀下，怎麼能不行動?

Dr. Malcolm:
What's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores.
發明有什麼好?那是暴力，它是狂暴刺穿的行為，到處留疤痕。
What you call discovery…I call the rape of the natural world.
你所謂的發明，我叫它強姦自然界。

Ellie:
The question is, how can you know anything about an extinct eco-system? How could you ever assume that you can control it?
問題是你如何能了解一種滅絕的生態系統?因此你如何設想控制的辦法?
You have plants in this building poisonous. You picked them because they look good. But these are aggressive living things that have no idea what century they're in and they'll defend themselves. Violently, if necessary.
你這棟樓裡有含毒的植物，你見他好看而擺設。但是恐龍有侵略性，它不管時代，必要時它們會用暴力自衛。

John Hammond:
Dr. Grant. If there's one person here who could appreciate what I am trying to do….
葛博士!如果在座有一個人能欣賞我在做的努力…

Alan:
The world has just changed so radically and we're all running to catch up....
I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but dinosaurs and men, two species separated by 65 million years of evolution have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we possibly have the slightest idea what to expect?
世界急劇的改變，我們在迎頭趕上，我不想妄下論斷，但是人類和恐龍，兩個物種相差六千五百萬年，突然間被送做堆了，我們能期望什麼呢?