Should professional interpreters be able to conscientiously object in healthcare settings?

Nathan Emmerich*, Christine Phillips

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    1 Citation (Scopus)

    Abstract

    In a globalised world, healthcare professionals will inevitably find themselves caring for patients whose first language differs from their own. Drawing on experiences in Australia, this paper examines a specific problem that can arise in medical consultations using professional interpreters: whether the moral objections of interpreters should be accommodated as conscientious objections if and when their services are required in contexts where healthcare professionals have such entitlements, most notably in relation to consultations concerning termination of pregnancy and voluntary assisted dying. We argue that existing statements of professional ethics suggest that interpreters should not be accorded such rights. The social organisation of healthcare and interpreting services in Australia may mean those who have serious objections to particular medical practices could provide their services in restricted healthcare contexts. Nevertheless, as a general rule, interpreters who have such objections should avoid working within healthcare.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)700-704
    Number of pages5
    JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
    Volume46
    Issue number10
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2020

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Should professional interpreters be able to conscientiously object in healthcare settings?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this