This site offers you an opportunity to share your thoughts and opinions and to post them from your readings in the Ethics in Interpreting course. I welcome your insights. Feel free to discuss among your classmates.
I'm still struggling with the definition of ethics. It seems to me that what was presented in class today boiled down to if the law says it's acceptable, it's also ethical. Did anyone else get that impression or is it just me? And, that's why I brought up the issue of abortion. It is a hot topic and, personally, I would be uncomfortable interpreting for a client who was receiving consultation for an abortion. I believe it is unethical for a doctor, who is supposed to "do no harm", to perform an abortion.
Webster's dictionary defines ethics as this:
1. The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.
2. a set of moral principals: a theory or system of moral values; the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group; a guiding philosophy; a consciousness of moral importance
3. a set of moral issues or aspects
The only time the "group" is mentioned is in definition 2, but is coupled with individuals. So, based on this definition, what might be ethical to me may not be ethical to you - even within the same group. Going with the example of abortion, you may view the decision to receive an abortion as an ethical one while i view the same decision as an unethical one. Who is right? How should we as Interpreters respond? Which of our "groups" takes presidence in our lives when determining ethics? I'm a teacher and a personal support advocate for vulnerable adults. I am considered a mandated reporter by the State of Washington. If I am on a job and witness someone exploiting a vulnerable adult in public or in private, I am bound by my certification to report that. However, the RID tenet of confidentiality may prevent me from doing so. Do I break the tenet and report it, possibly giving my name a bad reputation in the Interpreting community? Or do I risk that in order to do my duty as a mandated reporter?
Jenn, I think what Brenda was talking about concerning law was 'meta-ethics', which deals with the foundation of moral principles and can be dependant upon the culture you reside in. (btw, Clyde's culture class goes into this quite well, as do 'normal' sociology classes if you're looking for more info) As for whether or not you break the tenet. YES. There are certain rules/laws/ethics that supercede the CPC, which Dave has touched on some in the past. Especially if someone's health or life is at stake. Tiffany said she went to Jan Humphrey's workshop and talked about the scenario where the Deaf client is in the hospital and states he hasn't done any street drugs but you know he has. Jan said something like "Can I live without my certification? Yes. Can I live knowing he lost his life because of my silence? No." There are so many shades of grey. Hope that helped
3 comments:
Jenn, here...
I'm still struggling with the definition of ethics. It seems to me that what was presented in class today boiled down to if the law says it's acceptable, it's also ethical. Did anyone else get that impression or is it just me? And, that's why I brought up the issue of abortion. It is a hot topic and, personally, I would be uncomfortable interpreting for a client who was receiving consultation for an abortion. I believe it is unethical for a doctor, who is supposed to "do no harm", to perform an abortion.
Webster's dictionary defines ethics as this:
1. The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.
2. a set of moral principals: a theory or system of moral values; the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group; a guiding philosophy; a consciousness of moral importance
3. a set of moral issues or aspects
The only time the "group" is mentioned is in definition 2, but is coupled with individuals. So, based on this definition, what might be ethical to me may not be ethical to you - even within the same group. Going with the example of abortion, you may view the decision to receive an abortion as an ethical one while i view the same decision as an unethical one. Who is right? How should we as Interpreters respond? Which of our "groups" takes presidence in our lives when determining ethics? I'm a teacher and a personal support advocate for vulnerable adults. I am considered a mandated reporter by the State of Washington. If I am on a job and witness someone exploiting a vulnerable adult in public or in private, I am bound by my certification to report that. However, the RID tenet of confidentiality may prevent me from doing so. Do I break the tenet and report it, possibly giving my name a bad reputation in the Interpreting community? Or do I risk that in order to do my duty as a mandated reporter?
That's where I'm confused...
Anyone else feel the same?
Jenn,
I think what Brenda was talking about concerning law was 'meta-ethics', which deals with the foundation of moral principles and can be dependant upon the culture you reside in. (btw, Clyde's culture class goes into this quite well, as do 'normal' sociology classes if you're looking for more info)
As for whether or not you break the tenet. YES. There are certain rules/laws/ethics that supercede the CPC, which Dave has touched on some in the past. Especially if someone's health or life is at stake.
Tiffany said she went to Jan Humphrey's workshop and talked about the scenario where the Deaf client is in the hospital and states he hasn't done any street drugs but you know he has. Jan said something like "Can I live without my certification? Yes. Can I live knowing he lost his life because of my silence? No."
There are so many shades of grey. Hope that helped
Post a Comment