The editorial is being written in the unusual circumstance of a global pandemic where many academics are getting used to varying degrees of lock down, depending on their particular government’s decisions about how much they feel justified in asserting their authority over the private lives of citizens. For many this has included isolating themselves and their families in their own homes for the sake of the greater good, avoiding contact with as many people as possible, and thus preventing further spread of the current virus and the danger of serious illness or death. The long-term impact on University staff of the sudden massive development of virtual teaching methods remains to be seen. By contrast, the practitioners, carers and service users who are more closely implicated in practices of ethics and social welfare are obviously more likely to be seriously affected by the virus. There is also plenty of evidence that large numbers of people who are members of various oppressed social groups are not only in greater immediate risk, but in addition, they are at risk of suffering in the long-term as a result of the inevitable major economic downturn. The loss of employment and disruption of businesses, small and large, has thrown huge numbers of people onto welfare and health organisations that have been systematically slimmed down into second class public services by neo-liberal governments across the globe. Women, the working class, minority ethnic groups, the disabled and older people are all disproportionately affected: there will not be any shortage of ethical issues for readers and authors associated with this journal to consider. However, this pandemic is not the first and is unlikely to be the last. Some commentators are speculating about how the shock of the pandemic experience might change people’s attitudes to social welfare, with governments having to resurrect ideas about the importance of investment in public services and more than minimal government involvement in social life. Time will tell whether this kind of development will be significant or not: readers (and editors) of this journal will no doubt be watching closely. It will be interesting to see whether one of the consequences will include contributions to this journal that reflect on these circumstances. In this issue of the journal, there are two papers and a conference report concerned with ethical issues in research processes. This has been a continuing topic since the journal started and clearly remains an important practical and theoretical matter for many if not most of our readers. However, the first paper in this issue is an unusual study by Marian Barnes, a former editor of this journal, whose contact with a small residential community operating in the UK led her to reflect on how its values and functioning could be seen from the perspective of the ethics of care. The community offers hospitality and support to people with addictions, mental health problems and other troubles, offering hospitality to people of all faiths or none. Marian conducted a series of oral history interviews at the time of the community’s 60th anniversary, and used a feminist care ethics to analyse the evidence of care in action in this remarkable setting. The article makes connections between care for the community and care for members of the community, arguing that this offers a valuably different perspective from an emphasis on individualised care – perhaps of some relevance to communities worldwide sharing and trying to minimise the pain of the pandemic whilst individuals simultaneously suffer the social and health consequences. The second paper is by a group of 6 academics who have studied the apparent disproportionate number of complaints made about social workers in England to their regulators, the

中文翻译：

---

社论

这篇社论是在全球大流行的不寻常情况下撰写的，在这种情况下，许多学者已习惯于不同程度的锁定，具体取决于他们特定政府的决定，即他们认为有多少理由维护自己对公民私生活的权威。对许多人而言，这包括为了更大的利益将自己及其家人隔离在自己的家中，避免与尽可能多的人接触，从而防止当前病毒的进一步传播以及严重疾病或死亡的危险。虚拟教学方法的突飞猛进对大学员工的长期影响尚待观察。相比之下，从业者 与道德和社会福利实践息息相关的护理人员和服务使用者显然更容易受到该病毒的严重影响。也有大量证据表明，属于各种被压迫社会团体的许多人不仅面临更大的直接风险，而且由于不可避免的主要经济因素，他们有长期遭受痛苦的风险。低迷。失业的丧失和大小企业的破坏，使大量人涌入福利和保健组织，这些组织已被全球新自由主义政府系统地缩减为二等公共服务。妇女，工人阶级，少数民族，残疾人和老年人受到的影响尤其严重：与该期刊相关的读者和作者都不会缺少道德问题。但是，这种流行病不是第一个，而且不可能是最后一个。一些评论家正在猜测大流行经历的冲击如何改变人们对社会福利的态度，政府不得不重新考虑对公共服务投资的重要性的观念，而不仅仅是政府对社会生活的最小介入。时间将证明这种发展是否有意义：该期刊的读者（和编辑）无疑将密切关注。有趣的是，其中的后果之一是否将包括对该期刊的贡献以反映这些情况。在本期杂志中，有两篇论文和一份会议报告涉及研究过程中的道德问题。自从期刊开始以来，这一直是一个持续的话题，对于许多读者（即使不是大多数）来说，显然仍然是重要的实践和理论问题。但是，本期的第一篇论文是该杂志的前编辑玛丽安·巴恩斯（Marian Barnes）进行的一项不寻常的研究，她与英国一家小型住宅社区的接触使她思考了如何从角度看待其价值和功能的护理伦理。社区向上瘾，精神健康问题和其他麻烦的人们提供款待和支持，向所有信仰或没有信仰的人们提供款待。玛丽安（Marian）在社区成立60周年时进行了一系列口述历史采访，并运用女性主义的护理伦理来分析在这种非同寻常的环境中行动护理的证据。这篇文章将关怀社区与关怀社区成员之间的联系联系起来，认为这与重视个性化关怀提供了一种截然不同的观点-也许与世界各地的社区共享并试图最大程度地减少大流行的痛苦有关个人同时遭受社会和健康后果。第二篇论文是由6位学者组成的小组研究的，他们研究了英格兰社会工作者向监管机构投诉的数量明显不成比例的问题。认为这与重视个性化护理提供了一种截然不同的观点-也许与全球社区共享并试图将大流行的痛苦降到最低，同时个人同时遭受了社会和健康后果。第二篇论文是由6位学者组成的小组研究的，他们研究了英格兰社会工作者向监管机构投诉的数量明显不成比例的问题。认为这与重视个性化护理提供了一种截然不同的观点-也许与全球社区共享并试图将大流行的痛苦降到最低，同时个人同时遭受了社会和健康后果。第二篇论文是由6位学者组成的小组研究的，他们研究了英格兰社会工作者向监管机构投诉的数量明显不成比例的问题。