Interpreting for foreign languages... Should the agency tell you what its about?

[DogCalledRudis]

Last week i had a severe case of schizophrenia and a woman scheduling an abortion.

Ok, these cases need interpreters, but maybe the agency could have picked someone with 'colder nerves'?

Surely the reason the OP has a job as an interpretor is because the hospital doesn't know what the patient wants?
How can they provide a summary beyond 'someone who doesn't speak english has turned up and needs to be able to tell us why they are here'

It's your job the translate, not pass a moral judgement on someone's medical decisions. And you aren't advising about abortion, you're translating it. Your opinions on their reasons for wanting one are your own, and unimportant.

I am bloody glad I don't need an interpreter. I loathe the thought of having to deal with my own private health matters through the mouth and ears of someone who is imposing their own personal judgements.

It's not your job to "advise" these people, as you put it. You are merely facilitating them to communicate with the actual advisor. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about your role, tbh.

Thanks you are stating it was 'for very wrong reasons' rather indicates that you're in the wrong job. Your job is to communicate, impartially - you are not there to pass judgement. Surely you knew when you signed on to do medical/police interpretation, that you would be dealing with sensitive matters?

'That you are...' not 'thanks you...'

It doesn't seem like this is a job suited to you. Yes there are distressing situations but every single person can't be excluded from cases because of personal issues. Should a doctor not treat a patient because he is against abortion. That's not how it works. You're there to do a job, not offer any advise.

Lady GPs are able to choose to opt out of abortion treatment.

Some don't refer at all (but usually pass onto their colleague in the next room who will), some will refer but won't actually sign the form. The system is set up so that HCPs don't have to be involved in abortion if they have moral objections. This is for the sake of the staff and the patients.

Interpreters are different, if I knew what my patients wanted to talk about then I wouldn't need one for a start.
It's much better that the interpreter who is sent is prepared for whatever might be thrown at them and won't be making any moral judgments.

"are you ok advising somebody about abortion"

YOU are not advising. YOU are a mouthpiece ONLY. You are only providing a service to make sure that information is conveyed as accurately as possible between party a and party b. YOU are not a component in that equation.

Christ I am dreading DS using an interpreter when he grows up.

As PPs have said, you are there to TRANSLATE, not to advise and certainly not to judge. The two parties involved are conversing with each other, not with you, you are the mouthpiece for one party that is all. It doesn't matter one tiny bit what your views are on the conversation, you are not involved, you are facilitating it.

If you can't do this, you should not be doing the job. I understand it's difficult DH was training to be an interpreter then decided he could not do it for these very exact reasons. It's not for everyone.

My guess would be that the "very wrong reasons" are about aborting a female fetus, simply because she is female.

While there might be a wide variety of views about abortion here, I think most of us could agree that might be a very difficult conversation for the doctor and interpreter.

As others have said, maybe this isn't the job for you. I used to work at SS and we had to trust, absolutely, the interpreter. With any other professional or other person involved, I had a lot of skills and experience but with this, I was trying to work out if someone was translating faithfully without knowing what they were saying. When I said, "blah blah" and was translated for six sentences, I would have to stop the interpreter and ask what they had said. Fine if the answer was, "there's no one word for that word in Somali". Not fine of the answer was, "I'm just explaining the process to her". When I was even supposed to be talking to the interpreter, just the client.

If you can't be a 'machine' in this process, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

*wasn't even

I trained as both a translator and interpreter. It sounds as though you're in public service interpreting, specialising in health, in which case, I imagine cases like this will arise. If you're uncomfortable, there's nothing wrong with switching fields. Working in a more commercial area will no doubt pay better too.

I've worked as a Translation Project Manager and would always provide a brief to our translators and interpreters. Hence I'd be interested to know which agency you're working through. If you don't have a clue what you're turning up to, how can you possibly familiarise yourself with any subject specific terminology? I'd say I'm fluent in the source and target languages I worked with, but there would still be medical terms I wouldn't have a clue about in English, hence I'd need to gen up on their equivalents in the other languages.

There are many misconceptions about the role of interpreters, particularly in public service scenarios. They're often referred to as translators for a start, which is incorrect, as translation is the written word! When there is a shortage of speakers of a certain language, standards can slip dramatically. There was a study a number of years ago about how hospital cleaners were often used as interpreters - I'll try and find it.

Mumoftwoyoungkids An interpreter is not an HCP. An interpreter is like the postie or messenger who moves the form around. And they have "conscience clause" and should not have one.

• No conscience clause.

www.stjerome.co.uk/tsa/abstract/117/

This is the one.

I'd agree with PPs upthread too - you're not there to pass judgement, you're effectively a robot used to convey the other person's voice. Hard when the subject matter is emotive, but as above, if you find it difficult (and that's completely understandable), you can easily move fields. To be honest, it doesn't sound as though the agency you're working with is the most ethical if you're turning up at jobs unprepared, which in turn can put both you and the patient you're working with at risk. Incidentally, do you have insurance?

I think mumoftwoyoungkids was replying to ladyluck who said, "Should a doctor not treat a patient because he is against abortion. That's not how it works."

mumoftwo was right in saying that there is a conscience clause for doctors, midwives, nurses who do not wish to take part in terminations, except 'to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant women', so a doctor who refused to help someone bleeding out post-abortion would be in the wrong.

There was a test case in which a medical secretary objected to having to type a referral letter regarding an abortion, but the case was dismissed.

When we book an interpreter we don't tell the person on the phone what it is for, we just tell them the language and department. We can't go around giving patient details to the secretary on the phone. It is tough but as an interpreter working in hospitals you will end up with a wide variety of situations and, without wishing to sound racist or judgmental, when dealing with those who cannot speak any English, you are going to encounter a higher than population average amount of difficult and less than ideal situations.

You are a voice not a person when you are working. I am not even supposed to talk to you and be looking at you. I am talking to my patient and looking at them and my body language and eye contact when I speak is for them and not you. What I want in essence is for your voice to flow from my mouth.

That is the job. If it is causing conflict with your emotions and your ethics then perhaps it is not the job for you. That may sound harsh but that is the way it is.

My thoughts on this. A service user in need of an interpreter deserves a person who can do the job and stand back and be non-judgmental. It sounds like in some cases you find this hard to do, OP, so I think you do need to clarify things with the agency, or find an agency that deals with 'naicer' work. Thing is, as others have said, the service user is not the agency's customer - it will be the police or that NHS or SS or whatever who are on the agency's books. The last thing a service user needs in a difficult situation is an interpreter with a cat's bum mouth, I'd say.

Further note - even HCPs do not 'give advice'. In most cases they give information and the patient decides what is right for them. I know we've all met doctors who have said 'Well, if you were my wife ...', but really as an interpreter your role is not to advise. Would some further training in interpreting help, do you think?

And that's what I was saying earlier. Basically, this sort of experience, while generally fairly rare, is an occupational hazard unless you wish to risk severely limiting your options.

In that case I agree completely. The OP is in the wrong line of work.

Maybe the OP could look into translation work instead of interpreter work? When I did that it was fairly easy to choose what "area" your preference/specialties were best suited. And translation work has plenty of commercial clients. I never translated for anything public sector at all.

Andrew
dino is right I was replying to Lady about the fact that HCPs can opt out of terminations - not about whether an interpreter is a HCPS.

But, actually, I do think that an interpreter should be able to opt out. The thought of a woman needing an abortion being dependent on a pro life interpreter is pretty shocking. I realise that it is hard to do in practice though.

As an interpreter your are paid to translate exactly what is said my all parties in the room, you are not paid to have an opinion. I agree with other poster's that you may be in the wrong job.

OP, any chance you could come back to the thread? I am interested to see if your opinions have remained the same or changed after hearing others views.