Thursday March 30, 2006
1. The different people and entities that were blamed for the transmission of HIV to
Hemophiliacs in Japan, the US, and France were
2. The hemophiliacs in the three countries claimed t
3. The hemophiliacs turned to…to resolve their disputes.
The differences between the
people in the three countries were mainly that
4. It might not matter to turn to criminal courts in pursuing a claim because the injured
party has less control over what happens.
If, for instance, there were a biased District
Attorney, intent on not prosecuting the crime, the injured party would probably have little
chance at getting justice.
If the victim still feels as though justice hasn’t been served, he
can pursue a civil trial, where he would be able to control things like evidence, jury
5. Feldman says that other scholars have characterized the differences in legal culture
amongst the three countries.
In the end, his research confirms/contradicts these scholars
6. The factors that appear to influence naming, blaming, and claiming in the US are.
France, they are .
In Japan, they are .
7. The breast implant cases received a great deal of media, government, and judicial
attention because sex sells.
In the media, the issues that come to the forefront have to do
more with what people find interesting and engrossing.
Seemingly, that includes
violence, sex, and other sources of conflict.
In the mid-1980s, many blood transfusion recipients and close to half of Japanese,
American, and French hemophiliacs realized that they had been infected with HIV-
contaminated blood. In this article I argue that the legal conflicts over HIV-tainted blood
in those three nations defy conventional comparative claims about courts, conflict, and
compensation. I first describe the similar policy responses of France, Japan, and the