jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 22
I had a situation a couple of days ago, and I have continued to think about it because I'm really not sure if I acted in a way that would be supported by a deaf client.
Let me give you some background, first. In the agency where I do some hours, clients are assigned to therapists as available. Then, after the first meeting, if the client has areas that another therapist is more experienced in, we will refer to that other therapist. We want to make sure that clients get the therapist that can best help them.
Always before, when deaf client has come to the clinic, he/she is referred to me. Even when the problem is not directly related to deafness, my colleagues understand how cultural issues are connected to the way problems and solutions are perceived, etc, and they respect my knowledge of Deaf Culture just as I respect other's knowledge of various cultures and refer clients to them.
Well, I had a co-worker the other day come into my office and say, "I have a hearing impaired client coming in and the first meeting was kind of tough. Could you interpret this session?"
First, I asked her if the client has expressed desire to be referred to as "hearing impaired" and explained that she was going to get off on the wrong foot if the client saw that label as a negative. Then I explained that , no, I could not interpret the session as I was not an interpreter. She said, "But I thought you knew sign language." I told her that I could communicate fluently in ASL, but interpreting required special skills that I did not have, and I would not be comfortable interpreting something as important as a counseling session. I did however, tell her that I would be happy to see the client on a consultation basis, and provide her with my assessment and recommendations for treatment from a cultural perspective specific to that client. I suggested that she ask the client if she would be more comfortable with a therapist that was fluent in ASL and understanding of the culture. If the client says "yes", then she has the ethical obligation to refer the client to someone that fits that requirement, as being comfortable with the therapist and developing mutual trust was mandatory to successful therapy.
But here is my question: If it were you in that situation would you have preferred that I went ahead and interpreted even though I am not an interpreter and am not comfortable in that position, or would you rather I handled it as I did and offered to see the deaf client myself and then refer back to the original therapist if that was what the client wanted? Your honest answers will guide me in what to do if the same thing ever comes up again.
Let me give you some background, first. In the agency where I do some hours, clients are assigned to therapists as available. Then, after the first meeting, if the client has areas that another therapist is more experienced in, we will refer to that other therapist. We want to make sure that clients get the therapist that can best help them.
Always before, when deaf client has come to the clinic, he/she is referred to me. Even when the problem is not directly related to deafness, my colleagues understand how cultural issues are connected to the way problems and solutions are perceived, etc, and they respect my knowledge of Deaf Culture just as I respect other's knowledge of various cultures and refer clients to them.
Well, I had a co-worker the other day come into my office and say, "I have a hearing impaired client coming in and the first meeting was kind of tough. Could you interpret this session?"
First, I asked her if the client has expressed desire to be referred to as "hearing impaired" and explained that she was going to get off on the wrong foot if the client saw that label as a negative. Then I explained that , no, I could not interpret the session as I was not an interpreter. She said, "But I thought you knew sign language." I told her that I could communicate fluently in ASL, but interpreting required special skills that I did not have, and I would not be comfortable interpreting something as important as a counseling session. I did however, tell her that I would be happy to see the client on a consultation basis, and provide her with my assessment and recommendations for treatment from a cultural perspective specific to that client. I suggested that she ask the client if she would be more comfortable with a therapist that was fluent in ASL and understanding of the culture. If the client says "yes", then she has the ethical obligation to refer the client to someone that fits that requirement, as being comfortable with the therapist and developing mutual trust was mandatory to successful therapy.
But here is my question: If it were you in that situation would you have preferred that I went ahead and interpreted even though I am not an interpreter and am not comfortable in that position, or would you rather I handled it as I did and offered to see the deaf client myself and then refer back to the original therapist if that was what the client wanted? Your honest answers will guide me in what to do if the same thing ever comes up again.
for asking and also to those who answer-
I think that having a client being in a room where there is not a one to one client, but several people or therapists including probably the co-worker want to listen what the deaf client said. Even if Jillio is hearing and not being a certified interpreter, it is imperative that she can sign with the client only one to one person in a private room like most therapists do. 
