Introduction
The ethical dilemma provided as a scenario for a detailed analysis refers to Rachel, who provides emergency interpreting services for mental health facilities. Several months earlier, Rachel participated in the intake of a D/deaf woman. The latter wanted to commit suicide and was admitted for inpatient treatment.
Currently, Rachel is tasked with conducting a job interview at a rehabilitation center. She recognizes that the candidate is a D/deaf woman and is unsure whether she should mention her mental issues. This moral conflict refers to the NAD-RID Code’s tenets of confidentiality, respect, and maintenance of ethical business practices.
Stakeholders Involved
Several parties are directly or indirectly involved in this ethical dilemma, with Rachel being the primary stakeholder. The interpreter needs to determine what decision to make based on the Code of Professional Conduct and her moral principles.
Another person who knows the contradictory circumstances of the situation is the D/deaf woman who wants to get a job as a manager but has a history of mental problems. She is interested in the position but is uncertain what to expect from Rachel.
The third stakeholder is the HR director, representing the rehabilitation center. They need a qualified employee who can benefit the center, so HR needs to know all relevant information about the candidate.
Applying the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct
Several tenets of the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct are challenged in the scenario. Some of the document’s elements might prompt Rachel to disclose the information she knows or keep it confidential. In contrast, others may recommend that she report being unable to complete the task.
For example, according to the first tenet of confidentiality, interpreters must “share assignment-related information only on a confidential and ‘as-needed’ basis” (The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, 2005, p. 2). Since the circumstances in which Rachel learned about the D/deaf woman’s mental concerns are unrelated to the current situation and took place months ago, it is unlikely to be on an “as-needed” basis.
Further, interpreters must disclose any potential or actual conflict of interest to the involved parties but are also expected to “avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest that might cause harm or interfere with the effectiveness of interpreting services” (The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, 2005, p. 4). These elements of the third tenet offer somewhat contradicting solutions, and it is unclear whether Rachel needs to disclose the information or at least the existence of a concern, or prevent her participation in the interview.
Next, the code states Rachel has to respect her consumers, and in the given circumstances, respecting the D/deaf woman and the HR director might mean taking contradictory actions. Lastly, because both women are confused and uncomfortable, it might be expected that Rachel will report that there are no appropriate conditions for the interview (The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, 2005). As evident, all the mentioned tenets refer to different solutions.
Potential Solutions
Several possible options exist for Rachel to select from the Code of Professional Conduct and her principles. Firstly, she can report being unable to offer her services due to personal reasons, a lack of comfortable conditions, or a conflict of interest that she cannot describe in detail. Secondly, the interpreter can pretend that she does not possess any controversial information and keep it confidential, respecting the D/deaf woman’s rights. Thirdly, she should report the candidate’s mental issues immediately or privately to the HR director.
However, all these options might contradict Rachel’s ethical values. Therefore, the most efficient option will simultaneously address all the mentioned tenets, focusing more on disclosing confidential information when needed and respecting the clients (The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, 2005). The primary step is to first talk to the D/deaf woman and learn whether she disclosed the information about her issues to the center. If not, it is recommended that Racher explain to the candidate the essence of communicating this information, referring to the safety of developmentally delayed D/deaf individuals that the D/deaf woman wants to manage. Convinced by Rachel’s sincerity, professional judgment, and openness, the candidate is likely to agree, which will resolve the dilemma.
Consequences of the Selected Solution
The chosen option will have specific effects on all stakeholders. Rachel, the D/deaf woman, and the HR director might be confused now and sometimes after because disclosing such information is unpleasant. Long-term effects on Racher include her professional growth and increased trust from clients, while a short-term impact can be a feeling of uncertainty regarding her choice. The D/deaf woman will be more relaxed working at the center as she will not need to hide the disclosed information.
However, the HR department will likely carefully observe and control her. A short-term pressure on the center is the need to make such a challenging decision regarding hiring the candidate. Eventually, the long-term effects on the facility are the need to carefully consider the D/deaf woman’s behavior as a manager and implement a more comprehensive approach when hiring new staff members.
Conclusion
To conclude, moral dilemmas are always challenging to resolve as they might lack a single right and comfortable option for all stakeholders involved. In the scenario discussed, Rachel has three potential solutions, none entirely satisfactory. However, according to the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct, the information she knows can be considered vital to be disclosed, so Rachel needs to discuss it with the D/deaf woman.
Reference
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (2005). NAD-RID code of professional conduct. Web.