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

Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (10):700-704 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,098

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-12-04

Downloads
25 (#654,840)

6 months
18 (#152,778)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nathan Emmerich
Queen's University, Belfast (PhD)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

When should conscientious objection be accepted.Morten Magelssen - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (1):18-21.
Conscientious Objection by Health Care Professionals.Gry Wester - 2015 - Philosophy Compass 10 (7):427-437.

Add more references