In what situation might an interpreter be justified in acting as an advocate?

In the context of interpreting, an interpreter is typically expected to maintain neutrality and provide accurate and impartial communication between parties. However, there are specific circumstances where acting as an advocate might be justified, particularly when it involves safeguarding the dignity and rights of individuals.

When the patient's dignity is at risk, the interpreter has a responsibility to intervene on behalf of the individual to ensure they are treated with respect and receive equitable care. This could involve situations where a patient's cultural background is not being appropriately acknowledged, where they face discrimination, or where their rights are being overlooked in the communication process. In such cases, taking an advocacy role helps ensure that the patient's voice is heard and that their dignity is preserved, which is aligned with ethical standards in interpreting practices.

While other scenarios may present challenging situations for the interpreter, they do not carry the same ethical imperative. Disagreement with medical advice does not justify advocacy because it compromises the interpreter's impartiality. Feeling uncomfortable is subjective and does not warrant advocacy action. Lastly, when there is an absence of an interpreter, that does not necessitate advocacy; instead, it indicates a need for proper interpreting services to ensure effective communication. Thus, advocating for the patient's dignity is the most ethically sound justification for an interpreter to take on an