Illuminating Nineteenth-Century English Urban Midwifery: the register of a Coventry midwife

The three-volume register of a sworn midwife provides unique insights into midwifery practice in an English city in the second half of the nineteenth century. The register is a rare primary source, and contains 5029 entries, from July 1847 to October 1875. Considered alongside the limited sources discovered to date, this analysis casts light on our understandings of non-elite midwifery, and the wider context of women's work in the nineteenth century. The midwife's patterns of work, her relationships with clients and lying-in charities, and the impact of local economic circumstances on her practice are discussed. Despite her extensive practice, the official record of her occupation is meagre.     

SPECIAL ISSUE: MAKING A BETTER WORLD FOR CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS

The punitive sentencing regime that has branded the United States as the Country incarcerating the largest number of its inhabitants has also imposed a terrible punishment on the children of incarcerated parents. These youth are at risk, not only for continuing an intergenerational cycle of crime, but also for entering the pipeline that extends from foster care, to school failure, homelessness, unemployability, poverty, and institutionalization. Even those who escape the more draconian collateral consequences of their parents' incarceration face stigma and shame that may affect their development. This special issue of the Family Court Review explores a myriad of issues that impact Children of Incarcerated Parents, and suggests a variety of approaches, practices and policies that will better the lives of children who should not suffer for the “sins” of their fathers and mothers. This Introduction highlights many issues that affect the children of incarcerated parents, summarizes the valuable contributions of the authors, and also identifies publications and research sources that delve more deeply into these topics.     

A just soldier's dilemma: facing a war that does not meet jus ad bellum criteria

In our challenging times individuals in military services may find themselves in the position of being called to contribute to a war whose overall justice they personally find morally suspect, or about which they have moral qualms. The right course of action in this situation can be a serious dilemma. Applying the principle of double effect to this dilemma recognizes essential state responsibility for war, but does not discount the soldier's personal moral responsibilities or individual will. This novel application of the principle of double effect treats damage produced by participating in a questionable war as a side-effect of pursuing other—clearly justifiable—intentions. The just war tradition already uses the principle of double effect when weighing the permissibility of individuals' acts in war, such as choosing bombing targets. The proposal here is to evaluate the decision to contribute to the war effort at all. This adaptation of the classic just war principle of double effect can be used to justify some—but not all—individual participation when a war's state-level justification is suspect.