Identity Crisis of Spoken Language Interpreters Cont'd

[This is a continuation of  the October 18th blog  "Identity Crisis of Spoken Language Interpreters]

So, let’s “muse” together.  What was the big deal?   Was there any harm done?

At the very least, it was not taking advantage of a wonderful opportunity to educate the consumers of interpretation services about our identity, our role, how to best utilize our skills and expertise, and compliance to federal laws.  Without having to subject the uncooperative and uninterested receptionist to a lengthy lecture quoting ethical precepts, codes, and best practices of the profession, she would have subtly conveyed the entire message merely by being a professional interpreter.   No “sermon” on the Title VI Statute of the Civil Rights Act of 1962 was necessary.  No verbal promenade through the boulevard of culturally and linguistically appropriate services in healthcare (CLAS standards) was needed.   Without even realizing what had occurred, the receptionist would have provided the same service to the “Spanish folks,” as she provides to “English folks,” and by doing so would have served as a glowing example of compliance to Title VI.  The hospital which employs the receptionist would have been in full compliance to federal law, not for a second risking withdrawal of federal funds. 

Further, without realizing the full impact of simply doing her job, the interpreter would have contributed a brick to the pharaonic pyramid( currently in construction) of being recognized as a professional, a professional as recognized as a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, a nutritionist, a translator, an orchestra conductor, an interpreter - recognition the interpreter in our real-life story ironically has often expressed she desperately wants.  

 The profession of medical interpretation lost out on an opportunity to demonstrate in action what it is.  The individual interpreter was harmed in that she will not be taken seriously as a professional.  And rightly so; she is, after all, a “helper-outer” for Spanish folks.  She is the person who can make these troublesome “different” folks (who keep the sheltered receptionist from doing her job by rote) disappear.  And in merely a tiny episode with no real danger of serious repercussions,  the hospital was harmed because it was in non-compliance to federal laws. 

And last but not least, albeit unwittingly, she harmed you, yes you, the professional interpreter who will be the one to respond to the receptionist’s next page and who, after having brought the “pesky” Spanish folks up to the reception desk for the receptionist to assist, will be asked, with an inpatient tone in the receptionist's voice, “Can’t you just take care of this?”.   Yes, you, the interpreter whose refusal to simply "take care of the Spanish folk problem" and insistence on interpreting (imagine that) will make you the recipient of rude remarks.  You will be asked to identify your manager so a formal complaint can be submitted;   Yes, you, the one called into your manager’s office to defend your lack of “teamwork,”; the very you, who will have to sit through the staff meeting in which the “Spanish folk helper-outer” will receive a “spotlight” for excellent patient care, you also have been harmed. 

Identity Crisis of Spoken Language Medical Interpreters--

One of my colleagues who has been interpreting as a staff interpreter at a hospital in North Carolina recently shared an experience with me that confirmed something I have suspected for a few years now.  The hospital she works for has little experience in the proper use of professional medical interpreters and she, herself, is only recently attempting to attain certification.  While finishing up an assignment, she was paged by the receptionist who told her there were some "Spanish folks" that needed assistance.  The receptionist was about to hand over the phone to them, but the interpreter stopped her and explained that for phone calls, the receptionist would need to use a phone interpreter.  She explained the reason for this was so that on-site interpreters could continue to answer pages for face to face encounters.  The receptionist was very put out and hung up on the staff interpreter.  To the interpreter's credit, once she finished the assignment she was currently on, she went to see the receptionist with not only the intention of smoothing things over and changing the perception that she had been unwilling to assist, but to also educate the receptionist about the proper use of the interpreting resources of the hospital (i.e. the difference between using a phone interpreter versus an on-site interpreter, etc.)  When she arrived, the receptionist endured the explanation but, immediately upon its completion, nodded toward the "Spanish folks" that were still there waiting, since the receptionist had decided to ignore them.  The staff interpreter went over, found out what they wanted, and directed them to the proper department.  In other words the interpreter did what the receptionist would have done with a native English speaker, never involving the receptionist.  

When my colleague finished her story, I confess I was flabbergasted at the ending.  It would have never occurred to me to do what she had done once she arrived.  She had gone all the way down to the reception with the intention of "fixing things", only to solidify the misuse of resources and foment erroneous views.  I spontaneously blurted out that I would have invited the family needing assistance to the receptionist desk, encouraged them to express their needs so I could interpret them to the receptionist, and then would have interpreted the receptionist's instructions back to the family.  My colleague's response was, "Oh that would have been perfect.  I wish I would have thought of that."  She wished she had thought of interpreting.

My purpose in sharing this experience, not a unique one at that, is not to make fun of this particular individual who was hired as a professional interpreter, but rather to highlight the identity crisis that some of us have as medical interpreters.  My colleague did not think of interpreting because that is not who or what she thinks she is.  She thinks of herself, just as the receptionist thinks of her, as a person who is around to "help out with Spanish-folks."  So in effect she did go down to the receptionist to fix things, but she did not fix things as an interpreter.  Her role (in this hospital, interpreters are just interpreters; they don't hold dual titles as in other healthcare facilities), was to help overcome any linguistic and cultural barriers for the receptionist to be able to provide the same service to this family as she would have provided to a family that spoke English well.  Her role was to interpret the conversations in such a way so that each individual would have responded the same way as two English speakers having that very same exchange. 

So, why did the staff interpreter not interpret?  Because that is not who she thinks she is.  She thinks she is a "fixer" for Spanish problems or issues and as such, the quickest, most efficient way of fixing that particular problem, was to take matters into her own hands get the job done.

I suspect that many reading this blog will wonder, "What is the big deal?"  It was the quickest most efficient way to answer the family's questions and the interpreter knew the answers without having to consult with the receptionist.  What harm was done?