THE NECESSITY FOR SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS
Much has been made of the lack of
sign language interpreters but little has been noted in the
media and general population of the consequences of same.
This paper will attempt to delineate the law that applies
and the inadequate adherence to provide “equal treatment
under the law” to which these principles should adhere.
“The Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination
on the basis of disability in employment, State and local
government, public accommodation, commercial facilities,
transportation, and telecommunication. It also applies to
the United States Congress”.1 Title III refers
to public accommodations. An example of which is the
settlement with regard to PONY Baseball headquarted in
Washington, PA, the complaint was based on a rule that
limited the number of coaches during a game. The result was
that a deaf player’s father could not interpret for his son
using sign language.
Title III
refers specifically to “nondiscrimination on the basis of
accommodations and commercial facilities”. This encompasses
many areas including, but not limited to, modifications for
the deaf and hard of hearing.
Title III Part 36 of the ADA
ensures that hospitals do not discriminate against persons
who are deaf or hard of hearing.2, 3 The UNITED
STATES vs. McLeod Regional Medical Center Settlement
(7/10/06) alleged that a deaf person who used sign language
for communication was unable to communicate effectively with
doctors without an interpreter on two occasions. A similar
situation occurred when another deaf person who also used
sign language was admitted several times to the hospital and
had to have a friend to serve as interpreter.3
A hospital in Louisiana denied a patient the use of an
American Sign Language interpreter until after she was
admitted to a hospital, given numerous drugs and was even
unaware of her diagnosis. The patient was ignored, despite
the fact that the patient had requested an interpreter
numerous times. No interpreter was provided until the
patient had been hospitalized for five days. A settlement
was reached on October 5, 2006 which stated that an
assessment of speech or hearing disabilities must be made
upon arrival at the hospital or at the time of the patient’s
appointment.4
These few examples point out the
excruciating fact that the population at large is more aware
of the “visible” disabilities, while the need for
communication with the deaf population appears to be less
obvious to them. The necessity for sign language
interpreters in everyday situations is still largely
inadequate and at times, blatantly ignored. The dire need
for interpreters in the medical setting is paramount to the
adequate delivery of medical care. Correct diagnoses are
based on accurate patient histories as well as physical
examinations, and not infrequently, can save precious time
and expensive procedures. As such, a concerted effort must
be made by both the deaf and hearing community to make
certain that all medical facilities: medical offices,
clinics, hospitals, laboratories and support staff do have
interpreters available from the making of appointments
through procedures and follow up care.
References:
1. A Guide to Disability Rights
Laws , September 2005.
2. United States Department of
Justice, Americans with Disabilities Act 1990.
3. Settlement Agreement Between The
United States of America and McLeod Regional Medical Center,
Florence, South Carolina. 7/10/06.
4. United States Department of
Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights News,
December 2006.