this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
17 points (94.7% liked)
Aotearoa / New Zealand
1656 readers
32 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use !politics@lemmy.nz
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in !offtopic@lemmy.nz
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to !support@lemmy.nz
- NZ regional and special interest communities
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ideally, yes, if we are talking about communicating critical information to patients.
However, the first issue is that the translator needs to be medically trained. If they aren't, they risk translating critical technical information wrong. We can't even get enough medical staff, let alone extras to be dedicated translators.
There are also other circumstances where I don't think a certified translator should be needed. For example, day to day interactions with a patient that aren't about communicating critical medical information (e.g. asking how they are doing). I think most nurse interactions with patients would not justify a translator if the nurse spoke their language. Many doctor interactions would, but those are generally more structured and could have a translator organised in advance, unlike most nurse interactions.
But also, as I mentioned there is likely a valid problem the memo is trying to address. The issue I see here is that the memo just decides the solution is that everyone has to speak English. This is just bad problem solving. They need to address the specific issues not have blanket rules that make the environment worse for patients.
I suspect speaking to patients isn't the problem (it's not specifically mentioned in the memo), and so translators may not actually be relevant.