🚀 go-pugleaf

"Rodney Wines" <rodney_usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3ca4d41a$0$28264$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>...
> > > I don't see well enough to drive, so obviously a doctor should provide
> > > transportation for me while s/he is providing an interpreter for you!
> >
> > irrelevant
> 
> It's only "irrelevant" if you're blind (or an insomniac, etc) instead of
> deaf ... :-)
> 

One thing has nothing to do with the other, so it is irrelevant.  The
comparison is not valid.  We're talking communication, not rides to
the doctor.

> OK, if "it's the law" that doctors have to provide interpreters for the
> deaf, then that's the end of it, and how the country physicians in rural
> communities who've never seen a deaf person will deal with this is left as
> an exercise for the alert reader, er, doctor.  Laws are based on who can buy
> the most politicians, and logic doesn't enter into it.
>

The law is logical.  You're just cynical.  If you were dying or had to
make a life or death decision, you, would want to know the full
details.  That's why there is a need for interpreters.  Writing,
lipreading, and pantomime are not good enough.
 
> If this is a grey area, however, as another poster pointed out, then I think
> that my point is a valid one.  Of more interest is the logic (or lack
> thereof behind Mike's original rant, er, complaint.  The logic went
> something like this: Physicians are uncaring because they are unwilling to
> provide him with an interpreter.

He's right.

>  Now, Mike is going to sue these same
> doctors by hiring a lawyer who refuses to provide an interpreter.
> Therefore, he is going to try to get justice by hiring an uncaring lawyer.

Mike didn't say he was ging to hire that lawyer.  He's still looking
from what I understand.  AND this was not part of his original
complaint.

> Furthermore, Mike isn't willing to pay for an interpreter himself, so he is
> uncaring about himself.

You obvioously don't get it.  The ADA is about access.  Giving him
access to the same care that you get.  It has nothing to do with
whether he cares for himself or not.

> 
> I also can't understand why the guy'd want a total stranger discussing
> intimate medical details with his doctor. 

Perhap he has no choice.  

> If the doctor arranges an
> interpreter, Mike has no clue what kind of person he'll get.  The
> interpreter could've come in dead last in his ASL As A Second Language
> class, and not be good at making medical information understandable. 

Certification is supposed to ensure that each interpreter has a
certain amount of qualification.  If the interpreter doesn't measure
up then that's a separate issue.

> Yes,
> it's true that doctors bury their mistakes, but patients aren't so lucky.
> Somebody else has to bury theirs, and the chore usually is left to the
> immediate family.

What are you talking about?  This is a totally different subject,
again.

  Where I live, I'm faced with the problem of finding
> doctors who speak English.  I went to a lot of trouble to make sure I could
> find one I could communicate well with.  There's no way I'm going to trust a
> translation to someone whose abilities I'm not familiar with.
> 

Cool, you've got a choice, many don't.  

> > ASL is "spoken" by Americans.  It is an American language developed
> > here in the USA.  Therefore, it should be provided for.  The others
> > can learn ASL or American English.
> 
> Both Spanish and Ebonics are "spoken" by Americans.

Yes but Spanish originated from elsewhere.  Most who speak Spanish
also speak English.  Those who don't are immigrants.  They brought
their own problem.  As for Ebonics, bahahaha, that is NOT a language.

Deaf who speak ASL are Americans, born and raised here.  The speak a
language developed here.  Schools have failed to properly teach
Englisj to many of them.  Yet their own people  get upset when they
want to know what the doctor says.

  Spanish was an
> "American" language in many parts of the US long before English was. 

NOT AS the United States.  You're talking about prior to that. 
Further, that is so long ago in time as to be irrelevant to today's
needs.  The only people who can complain are Native Americans.

 There
> are also Americans who speak Manderin, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc
> (remember that quote on the Statue of Liberty about those "huddled masses"?

Immigrants.  They brought their own problem.  They will have to learn
English or go home.

> Well, the world took us at our word on that one ...).  I don't know the
> statistics, but I'd bet that many (if not most) of these languages are
> "spoken" by a higher percentage of the population than is ASL. 

No ASL is more widley spoken than any of those, save Spanish.

>So, why
> should ASL be provided for when the othars are not? Why shouldn't the person
> needing an interpreter be responsible for providing one (assuming anyone
> would be willing to trust an interpreter provided by someone else with life
> and death information)?
>

Because they have no choice.  They are born and raised here.  This
their home.  They ought to have access before immigrants, at the
least.
 
> > > But, what about physical accomodations? There should be smaller chairs
>  in
> > > the waiting rooms for the vertically challenged, wider chairs for the
> > > calorically gifted, and the office should be open late for the
>  insomniacs.
> > > There should always be food available for the diabetics.  Surely I've
> > > forgotten somebody.  Oh, yes, the doctor should be responsible for
>  calling
> > > Alzheimer patients so they don't forget their appointments.
> > >
> > > You go get 'em, guy, and when you're done America will be a great place
>  for
> > > medical care for all of us no matter what "challenge" we might have!
> >
> > Ridiculous and irrelevant to the discussion
> 
> You quoted my whole post and added, what, 5 lines total? Unless you take the
> time to show how my comments are irrelevant, you've done nothing but state
> an opinion (or waste our time, depending upon how charitable your readers
> are).

It is irrelevant and a waste of time explaining that to you.  We're
talking about communication.  Physical access is a whole different
issue.  You're just throwing in other situtations to try and confuse
the real issue.  Sorry, didn't work with me, at least.