Article Text
PDF
Abstract
‘I hate interpreting for my parents. I don’t always know the proper words so I just make it up.’
Introduction Many children,including asylum seekers and refugees, act as informal interpreters for their parents when interacting with health and social services, schools and the local community.
Aim/method To conduct a literature review looking at the advantages/disadvantages of using children as interpreters
Disadvantages
Children may lack the fluency in both languages and the emotional maturity to act as a linguistic and cultural mediator
They may have little knowledge of medical terminology and be unable to translate anatomical details/concepts of diagnosis/treatment, raising concerns about their ability to gain informed consent
They may provide inaccurate information/withhold information to suit their own views
They may be exposed to disturbing information eg about serious illnesses, domestic abuse, termination of pregnancy
They may have to give ‘bad news’ to their parents
Parents may omit important information, wanting to protect their children or not embarrass them
Children may be asked to maintain confidentiality – keeping ‘secrets’ may place an unfair burden of responsibility on them
Potentially an altered dynamic in the parent/child relationship through role reversal
The child may miss school to attend appointments
Advantages:
The consultation can go ahead if a child is present/willing to interpret
The child will speak the same dialect
Some parents prefer to use their children as interpreters as they are concerned about confidentiality if an interpreter from their local community is involved
Interpreting may improve a child’s self-esteem
Children will learn how to access health care for themselves
Conclusion Although it is recommended that children do not act as interpreters, it can be argued that with limited availability of professional interpreters, children are acceptable if the consultation is likely to be straightforward. There is often a need to proceed with a consultation, this priority over-riding the reluctance to involve a child. At the same clinicians express an ideological opposition to this, the added responsibility potentially denying the child their right to a worry-free childhood (Cohen, 1999).