Reframing Medical Injury? Viewing People With Hemophilia as Victims of Cultural Injustice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a burgeoning literature in the social sciences on the politics of reparations for historical injustices. Using a case study of Canada, this article asks whether people with hemophilia who contracted HIV and/or hepatitis C through the blood system should be viewed as victims of cultural injustice. The dominant approach to understanding the claims made on behalf of tainted-blood recipients is the narrow frame of compensation for medical injury. Tainted-blood recipients are cast as the unwitting victims of a system that placed a premium on cost savings over patient safety. Giving contaminated blood to members of a community who were presumed to be already infected made sound economic sense at the time. As members of a tight-knit community, people with hemophilia have been stigmatized and subjected to school-yard taunts from classmates who viewed them as sissies because they had special medical needs and because of their association with a `gay disease'. Weaving elements of social movement theory and the reparations literature, I argue that the inarticulation of recognition claims to remedy cultural injustice simplified the state's response to the redistributive claims made on behalf of tainted-blood victims.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".