Answer:

The NOTIS Ethics Panel deals with questions from interpreters of all fields, as well as translators, language companies, and anyone who works with interpreters and/or translators.

A person is in an ethical dilemma if they face at least two conflicting ethical requirements when abiding by one inevitably leads to violating the other. On first reading, this may appear to be a complicated situation, constituting a true ethical dilemma. However, upon careful reading and some cursory investigation, the panel finds that the answer is quite straightforward and we offer the following recommendations:

1. Interpreters, no matter their area of practice, must do everything in their power to remain neutral and impartial. Chatting with the LEP person is not interpreting and frequently opens the door to ethical problems. No matter how seemingly benign the conversation, it can create the impression of allegiance to a side or, as in this case, put the interpreter in possession of information that compromises the interpreter’s neutrality and, as was the case here, puts the interpreter in an ethical bind. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Many ethical problems can be avoided by adhering strictly to best practices. Strategies for preventing private side conversations: 

• Avoid remaining alone with the LEP (step out of the room).

• Politely state to the LEP, “I’m sorry, but the rules for interpreters are very strict and I am not permitted to chat with you. I am required to interpret everything that is said.” Then repeat what you have said in English. 

• If feasible, put some physical distance between yourself and the LEP to discourage conversation and read a book or look at your phone when not actively interpreting. 

• If none of these options are available, or do not achieve the desired result and the LEP continues to speak to you, simply interpret everything they say. Most likely, this will terminate the conversation. If the LEP continues to speak and you continue to interpret, you can state in English and the language of the LEP, “The interpreter needs a break.” Repeat this as many times as necessary and hopefully your role will be made clear to all parties. 

2. When the NOTIS ethics panelists reviewed the interpreter services contracted for Washington State Health Care Authority (Apple Health/Medicaid), the panelists did not find the requirement for interpreters to undergo FWA training. In fact, the FWA training you forwarded to the Ethics Panel was a requirement for a different language company than the one currently scheduling appointments for the Washington State Health Care Authority (Apple Health/Medicaid). You shouldn’t apply requirements under contract A to services rendered under contract B. Give company A what belongs to company A and to company B what is company B’s. 

3.  Interpreters rendering services for Washington State Health Care Authority  (Apple Health/Medicaid) must abide by the code of conduct WAC 388-03-050 that states the following:

(3) Confidentiality. Interpreters/translators must not divulge any information publicly or privately obtained through their assignments

It is crucial to know which language company contracted you for this specific interpreting assignment, because you are required to follow whatever contract you signed. You should not sign a contract that potentially requires you to violate your interpreter code of ethics and professional responsibility. You can point out any contradiction in a contract and seek modification before agreeing to its terms. However, if you have signed a contract with requirements that contradict your interpreter code of ethics and you are facing a genuine ethical dilemma where abiding by the contract you signed inevitably leads to you violating your interpreter code of ethics, you should seek legal advice, because your actions could lead to you losing your interpreter credential. An attorney will have your best interests at heart and may act as a useful intermediary and shield you from serious consequences.

4. If you have such strong feelings about a particular issue -such as birth tourism- that they interfere with your ability to remain impartial, then it is your duty to recuse yourself from interpreting encounters that potentially touch upon it.