grossly inappropriate, and unprofessional. Not only would this decision lead consumers (I use plural because I include the Deaf woman and those I would inform in the community) to question their trust in me, it could also potentially jeopardize the reputations of other interpreters with whom I work. Tenet 1.2.2 of AVLIC’s Code states “members shall recognize that all work undertaken by them […] will ultimately reflect the integrity of themselves and of the profession.” (“AVLIC,” 2000, p. 2) Interpreters are bound by confidentiality unless “released from this obligation only with their consumers’ authorization or when ordered by law,” (p. 2) or between colleagues to “provide consistent quality of service.” (p. 2) If I were to go against this
…show more content…
While this option would uphold the confidentiality of everyone involved, it would, much like the last option, imply that I have little or no trust in the woman, and that she is somehow “incapable of fully understanding or participating in the world around [her];” (Humphrey & Alcorn, 2007, p. 173) therefore, reverting back to the “inappropriate and oppressive” (p. 173) helper model of interpreting. The decision to consult with the woman after the appointment would also breach the AVLIC tenet 1.3.1, which urges interpreters to “not counsel, advise, or interject personal opinions.” (“AVLIC,” 2000, p. 3) Not only is it insulting to the Deaf woman, warning or advising her on how to conduct her business it would be going “beyond the scope of an interpreting assignment and the parameters of [my] professional duties.” (pp. …show more content…
The benefits of this decision would be that I would clearly be acknowledging my friend’s right to privacy, and to choose how to run her own life. However, at the end of the day, I would be left with the knowledge that many of the people with whom I associate in the community could be potentially in danger of not only being infected with AIDS, but also at risk of spreading the disease. Another fact to take into consideration if I were to choose this course of action, is what is required of the doctor during and after this appointment. In Canada, AIDS is a “reportable illness,” (“Criminal Law and HIV,” 2014, p. 4) meaning that once someone tests positive for AIDS, it is the responsibility of medical personnel involved to report this to “public health authorities.” (p. 4) In this case, the woman provided the doctor with the list of her previous sexual partners; therefore, the doctor is required by law to report the names provided to the appropriate authorities. This procedure of “contact-tracing, partner counselling or partner notification,” (p. 4) is undertaken to let those who may be infected seek the medical help they deserve, and to prevent any further transmission of AIDS. While my friend specifically asked for me to interpret the appointment so the news would not leak into the community, “generally accepted principles of good practice mandate that the person doing the partner notification
While this option would uphold the confidentiality of everyone involved, it would, much like the last option, imply that I have little or no trust in the woman, and that she is somehow “incapable of fully understanding or participating in the world around [her];” (Humphrey & Alcorn, 2007, p. 173) therefore, reverting back to the “inappropriate and oppressive” (p. 173) helper model of interpreting. The decision to consult with the woman after the appointment would also breach the AVLIC tenet 1.3.1, which urges interpreters to “not counsel, advise, or interject personal opinions.” (“AVLIC,” 2000, p. 3) Not only is it insulting to the Deaf woman, warning or advising her on how to conduct her business it would be going “beyond the scope of an interpreting assignment and the parameters of [my] professional duties.” (pp. …show more content…
The benefits of this decision would be that I would clearly be acknowledging my friend’s right to privacy, and to choose how to run her own life. However, at the end of the day, I would be left with the knowledge that many of the people with whom I associate in the community could be potentially in danger of not only being infected with AIDS, but also at risk of spreading the disease. Another fact to take into consideration if I were to choose this course of action, is what is required of the doctor during and after this appointment. In Canada, AIDS is a “reportable illness,” (“Criminal Law and HIV,” 2014, p. 4) meaning that once someone tests positive for AIDS, it is the responsibility of medical personnel involved to report this to “public health authorities.” (p. 4) In this case, the woman provided the doctor with the list of her previous sexual partners; therefore, the doctor is required by law to report the names provided to the appropriate authorities. This procedure of “contact-tracing, partner counselling or partner notification,” (p. 4) is undertaken to let those who may be infected seek the medical help they deserve, and to prevent any further transmission of AIDS. While my friend specifically asked for me to interpret the appointment so the news would not leak into the community, “generally accepted principles of good practice mandate that the person doing the partner notification