Editorial

Abstract

This third issue of the year comes after a very successful special issue (17: 02) on ethical issues in research in social welfare policy and practice. The present issue contains general papers that were not designed for a special theme, but each has useful discussions of aspects of social welfare and ethics relevant to the journal. It also contains a couple of particularly interesting practice papers, one by a philosopher reflecting on his own experience of involvement in social welfare practice. The global reach of the journal is illustrated by the provenance of papers in this issue, with contributors coming from Sweden, Finland, Australia, Zimbabwe, and Austria, as well as the United Kingdom. The editors continue to welcome contributions to the journal from disparate sources in the belief that readers will benefit from understanding how different people in different social contexts conceptualise ethical issues in social welfare. In the first paper in this issue William Bülow of Uppsala University, Sweden, asks the question: ‘Who is Responsible for Remedying the Harm Caused to Children of Prisoners?’ He points out that it is often a cause for great concern that the children of prisoners suffer considerable harm as a result of the loss of a parent – and all that this can mean in terms of financial problems and emotional stress, even when the offender has been a cause of distress before their incarceration. He treats it as a matter of social justice, discussing four general principles that he argues are relevant to a balanced understanding of the responsibilities involved for these disadvantaged children. His focus is on responsibilities that may be identified going forward rather than seeking to apportion blame for past actions that have given rise to the present harm. However there is no avoiding the principle that those who have caused a situation to develop must be part of those who may be identified as bearing responsibility for its amelioration. Bülow also considers who may innocently benefit from social injustice, and the importance of the capacity of various agents to make a difference for such children, as well as existing commitments that may be in place requiring attention and action. The paper offers a thoughtful example of applied philosophical argument to a very practical situation concerning the social welfare of a vulnerable group whose needs and precarious position demand ethical, social and political intervention by differently positioned individuals and groups. The second paper in this issue is another substantial piece of work by a group of four Australian academics from the Latrobe University and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, and two specialist practitioners at the Independent Family Advocacy and Support, Victoria Legal Aid. The vexed relationship between parents, children and the state as represented by child protection social workers and related state agencies responsible for child health and welfare, is a long-standing issue of concern. The imbalances in power and responsibility are complex, but as the group of six authors contend, a commonly observed aspect of power relationships in social welfare is the service users’ experience of oppressive practice by individuals, agencies and the whole child protection system. Advocacy is not a novel idea in this area, but the authors have done a thorough job in bringing ideas of advocacy formed in legal practice to bear on the issues in child protection, whilst acknowledging the use of advocacy in other areas. The case study approach focuses on the experience of an agency