Print

Print

I would think there possibly is a case for indirect discrimination. However, the onus is to prove the ‘reasonable’ need for translation is ‘proportional’, that is some evidence of need of particular languages that need translation. Therefore, to ‘want’ translation of languages we may have to prove a ‘need’, e.g. it may not be warrant to translate documents in say ‘Greek’ if there is not a need.

 

However, I would imagine that the issue of ‘consent’ may have a greater impact, certainly using the Human rights legislation. Operating or providing medication to someone who does not understand what may happen to them could lead to a criminal charge (there may be some exceptions e.g. people who may not have the mental ability to understand or for physicians who may have an ‘implied’ consent).

 

I think the most pragmatic way to change organisational attitudes is to provide the ‘carrot’ of the business case (the cost of not doing it) backed with the ‘stick’ of the legal case.

 

Good debate!

 

Kind regards,

Dipen

Dipen Rajyaguru LL.B (Hons)
Health Equality & Diversity Specialist
Barnet PCT
020 8937 7709

 

From: Health of minority ethnic communities in the UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Phelan
Sent: 13 January 2009 11:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Guide on Medical Translation

 

Now We're Talking, the Scottish guidelines on working with interpreters are available at:
http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/7697-Nowwe'retalkinginterpretingguidelines.pdf

 

Mary

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Jacqueline Beavan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Legally, it could well prove to be uneconomic to discriminate on the grounds of language (see the Human Rights Act too, which has a non-exhaustive list of the grounds on which we shouldn't discriminate), although I agree we need some test cases to raise the profile.  What we also need is some research to show that it is uneconomic for other reasons, to counteract all the carping about the cost to the NHS of providing language services.

 

The RNID estimate that the NHS loses £20 million a year through failing to address the needs of deaf patients (leading to repeat appointments, missed appointments, unnecessary tests, non-compliance, etc).  This gives some idea of what might be lost through not providing interpreters for non-English speakers.

 

Jackie

 

From: Health of minority ethnic communities in the UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lorraine Culley
Sent: 12 January 2009 17:55


To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Guide on Medical Translation

 

This is certainly an important patient safety issue - there was a good article in New England Journal of Med July 2006 by Glen Flores on the catastrophic consequences of a lack of interpreters in the ER. Some useful references in this paper also. I am not a legal expert, but I think the failure to provide adequate interpretation must amount to indirect discrimination under the Race Relations Act.  I think its time that the HRC brought a case to test this - might shake a few people up once it starts to become 'uneconomic' to discriminate on the grounds of language!

 

 I think Jan (previous contributor) has some 'standards' - though these may not be UK specific.

 

Lorraine

 

Lorraine Culley

Professor of Social Science and Health

Associate Director Mary Seacole Research Centre

Hawthorn Building

De Montfort University

Leicester LE1 9BH

Tel. 0116 257 7753

Fax: 0116 257 7778

Knowledgeshare Editor: Diversity in Health and Social Care (Radcliffe)

 

 

From: Health of minority ethnic communities in the UK on behalf of James Stephen
Sent: Mon 12/01/2009 17:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Guide on Medical Translation

Maternity Alliance, 2000, "As Good As Your Word" is a useful resource for good practice, but I don't think there are accepted guidelines

 

On the justification for working with interpreters - locally, we find a clinical governance argument seems perhaps to get the widest acceptance. Some people think that patients should provide interpreters at their own expense, because they say interpreting is not part of health care, and they refer to practice in other European countries. One answer that seems to work is that health professionals need interpreters in order to provide a safe and effective service, e.g. to identify the patient, symptoms etc. So the interpreter is a specialist resource for other health professionals, just as they need to call on the services of other therapists, labs,

 

Thanks, Stephen

 

Stephen James, Head of Partnerships and Diversity, Ealing Primary Care Trust, 1 Armstrong Way, Southall, Middlesex UB2 4SA. Tel: 020 3313 9318. Fax: 020 3313 9618. Email: [log in to unmask]

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Health of minority ethnic communities in the UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alison Hipwell
Sent: 10 January 2009 13:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Guide on Medical Translation

 

Thanks for circulating this document, Mary - it's particularly useful to me at the moment as I'm currently writing my justification for working with interpreters & translators in my PhD research!

 

Do we have comparable national guidelines in the UK?

 

Thanks,

Alison

 

From: Health of minority ethnic communities in the UK on behalf of Mary Phelan
Sent: Fri 09/01/2009 20:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Guide on Medical Translation

The US based International Medical Interpreters Association has a new online Guide on Medical Translation available at:

 

 

Regards

Mary Phelan

School of Applied Language and Intercultural Studies

Dublin City University

 

 

NOTICE

This message and any files transmitted with it is intended for the addressee only and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. Unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you are not the addressee, you should not read, copy, disclose or otherwise use this message, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee.

Any views or opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Coventry University.



********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error, do not
copy, use it for any purpose or disclose to any other person. Please
notify [log in to unmask].

The contents of this e-mail may contain personal views which are not
the views of the Ealing Primary Care Trust.
********************************************************************

 

DISCLAIMER: This email is confidential but may have to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. If you are not the person or organisation it was meant for, apologies, please ignore it, delete it and notify us. E-mails may be monitored.

The views, opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are solely those of the author and are not endorsed by Barnet Primary Care Trust unless otherwise indicated by an authorized representative.

All reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail. However it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus free. Barnet Primary Care Trust accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or its attachments. Please note that the integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.