Quote:
Originally Posted by Reba
Is is "OK" to provide "some" access in any setting (legal, religious, medical, educational, etc.)?
There are two separate aspects here.
1. Ethically, from the consumer's viewpoint, it is never "OK" to provide partial or substandard access. Ethically, religious settings should voluntarily hold the highest standards for interpreting.
2. Legally, from the ADA viewpoint, not all settings are equal. The ADA, IDEA, and other legal entities have no jurisdiction over religious settings. In the eyes of the law, it's "OK" for churches to provide substandard access.
In my opinion, it doesn't even matter whether or not the interpreters think a particular setting or situation is less important. If the consumer feels that it's important to have full access, then it is important.
|
I disagree with you - I think that providing some access in certain settings is better than providing no access. I fully recognize that it is not
acceptable, and full access should always be provided. However, if it was me, and I had a choice between understanding part of it and understanding nothing at all, I would want to have at least some idea of what was going on. The ideal situation, of course, is to have fully qualified interpreters for every setting...but in reality that's very difficult to achieve.
You are right, of course, that what the consumer feels is important is what matters. That is exactly why I don't interpret in religious settings - I would be providing substandard interpreting services. If it is a choice between me and no interpreter at all, I would ask the deaf consumer what they wanted. But my preference is not to interpret in religious settings because I am not familiar enough with them.