Monday, June 25, 2012

SPI113: Forum question


One of the discussions that I have a lot is the rationale behind having a "certified or a trained" interpreter.
Yes, a bilingual person can serve as interpreter in everyday situations, and quite honestly do a very, good job.
HOWEVER, are you willing to take that risk, that the one time, the one conversation, the one word that will save your life, or keep you from jail, or buy that house/car... may be misinterpreted and the worse possible scenario that could have been avoided is now a reality. 
Example: 
In 1980, 18 year old Willie Ramirez was admitted into the hospital. Spanish speaking family members trying to explain his symptoms said that they believed Willie was “intoxicado.” The hospital staff’s incorrect interpretation of the word led to one of the most tragic documented cases of medical error involving language differences.
Ramirez reported that he had a headache and felt dizzy. Due in great part to the fact that the word “intoxicado” was misinterpreted as “intoxicated,” Ramirez was diagnosed with an intentional drug overdose. The miscommunication led to a misdiagnosis, the wrong course of treatment, and eventually, to his quadriplegia. It also resulted in a malpractice settlement of $71m. It was later discovered that the symptoms were the result of an intracerebellar hemorrhage. 
Ok, here's my question. Why are there hospitals still without "certified" or "trained" interpreters on staff? One word, misinterpreted, changed Mr. Ramierz's life forever. WHY risk the malpractice? Why risk someone's life?

No comments: