signer16 said:
... if someone is doing something illegal, you feel like an accomplice.
I have never been in that situation. I have worked in educational, medical, social service, religious, social, and employment settings. I don't recall any situations where someone for whom I was interpreting was trying to do something illegal.
There are exceptions. In school settings, the law requires that ALL staff personnel MUST report suspected child abuse.
If you have to be the tool to chew out a deaf person, some deaf people have a level of transferrence and will strongly dislike you after the "chewing out." (I have interpreter friends who have had this happen to them...that's hard.)
Now THAT I have experienced. However, the Deaf that I work with are used to using terps, and "get over" the transferrence almost immediately. Now, the
hearing people--that's another matter. They are not always educated in the use of interpreters, and think that YOU, the terp, are using your own words and tone when voicing, "You liar! Shut up!" Oh, yes, I have interpreted for boss/employee "disciplinary" confrontations. I have actually been physically "touched" during a male hearing supervisor's accusation of sexual harrasment to a male Deaf employee. Not good to be standing between them. Ack!
According to the Code of Ethics, it is like Doctor/Patient privilege...
One way to avoid potential problems is to never be alone with either the hearing or Deaf clients. That way, there is no private conversation between the terp and the client outside of the presence of the other party.
For example, suppose I am interpreting between a supervisor and an employee. The supervisor is disciplining the employee about excessive tardiness. The supervisor has to leave the room to get some files. Interpretor leaves the room, and waits in the hall. Terp does NOT stay in the office with the employee. Terp does NOT accompany the supervisor to get the file. That way, terp does not engage in conversation about the situation with either party.
Terps can be subpoened to testify in court about interpeting assignments. However, they are only required to testify as to their
interpretation of the testimony that was already given by the other parties. That is, suppose there is a malpractice case. The hearing doctor has testified, "I told the patient that his test was positive". The Deaf patient has testified, "The doctor told me that the test was negative". The terp can be required to testify as to the interpretation of the event. The terp says, "I signed this...", and then signs the sentence. Then the lawyers will debate the accuracy of what the terp signed, using sign language expert witnesses.
(p.s. this is why terps must carry "malpractice" liability insurance)
Sorry, I don't have a better example at hand.
This is the same response I've gotten from almost everyone that I tell that I don't really plan on becoming an interpreter, and especially from deaf people. "You sign really well, you would be a good interpreter!" But as Interpretrator said, people can be (I'm not...yet) fluent in ASL and very competent in deaf culture, but not good as interpreters for others reasons. Mine would be a strong sense of right and wrong, and the tendency to talk too much. Confidentiality I could improve on by simply shutting up and understanding the importance of doing so, but morals...those aren't going to change, and I don't want them to... I just have to find a balance.
It is also possible that you might not want to become an interpreter at this stage of life but you could change your mind a few years from now. Either way, I don't think learning ASL would ever be a "waste."
)
