🚀 go-pugleaf

> 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.

EXACTLY! I can't communicate with the doctor from my living room.  Either I
should be brought to the doctor, or the doctor should come to me.  It's all
perfectly logical (or as logical as Mike's case ...).

> > 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.

Yes, I'd want to know the full details.  That's why I would prefer to have
an interpreter whose qualifications I knew rather than some "lowest bidder"
who got drug in off the street.

> > 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.

Talk about your basic "irrelevant"? You don't know the doctor(s) in
question.  You have no idea what their mofives were, or how much effort it
would be for them to comply.

> >  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.

No, it wasn't part of his complaint, but this behavior can be interpreted
based upon his original logic (or lack thereof).

> > 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.

Of course it does.  He claims that a total stranger doesn't care about him
because that stranger won't provide him with an interpreter at the
stranger's expense.  Therefore, Mike doesn't care about himself because he
won't provide himself an interpreter at his own expense.  If he can judge
the doctor's caring based upon the doctor's actions, then we can judge Mike
based on his.  When we're talking "life or death", we're talking Mike's here
...

> > 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 he can't find an interpreter, and he is a deaf person who is presumably
familiar with the resources available to the deaf community, then how could
he expect a doctor who probably never even saw another deaf person to do so?

> > 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.

Certification means the interpreter met MINIMUM requirements at SOME time in
the past.  It does NOT say anything about whether he did better than that,
how careful he is, how "current" his skills are, or how well he'll
communicate with Mike personally.

> > 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.

We were talking about Mike having the information to make life or death
decisions, weren't we???

>   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.

Hey, we've all got chances many don't.  Mike is whining to the world on his
computer about how he's going to sue some doctors, and more than half the
world's population has never made a telephone call.  In case you've never
heard, "Space is a vacuum because the whole world sucks."  Get over it.  We
didn't get a level playing field, and we ain't gonna.  If Mike can afford a
computer and access time, he can find an interpreter in Northern Virginia.
There are parts of the US (and most of the rest of the world) where that's
not true.

> > Both Spanish and Ebonics are "spoken" by Americans.
>
> Yes but Spanish originated from elsewhere.

And English didn't????

> Most who speak Spanish also speak English

I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of Americans who speak Spanish and
don't speak English is higher than the percentage of Americans who speak ASL
and don't speak spoken English.

> Those who don't are immigrants.  They brought
> their own problem.

We're all immigrants.  I've got one great-grandmother who was Cherokee, but
according to DNA tests I read about, even the "native Americans" arrived in
four separate migration waves.

But the point is irrelevant.  As Americans, no matter how they became
Americans, they're entitled to the same protection as the rest of us.  You
don't like immigrants, that's your problem.

> As for Ebonics, bahahaha, that is NOT a language.

Whether or not I agree with that will remain a mystery for now, but I will
say that there are those who claim otherwise (with a straight face).  Just
what is a language anyhow? What makes ASL a language, tacking an "L" on the
end? If ASL is a language (and I'm not saying it isn't), we could claim that
written English is a separate language.

> Deaf who speak ASL are Americans, born and raised here.

Except for the immigrants who learned it ...

> The speak a language developed here.

And English speakers do not, so we don't have to worry about doctors
speaking English.

>   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.

Much of the southwestern US was already settled by Spanish speakers at the
time the area became US states.  They didn't instantly switch to English,
and some haven't done so yet.  Whether or not this is "irrelevant to today's
needs", it is NOT irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  These are Americans
for whom life and death is as important is it is to Mike.

> The only people who can complain are Native Americans.

OHMYGOD!!! I FORGOT!

Now how many Native American languages are there? There must be a dozen or
so still spoken somewhere.  Every doctor must obviously have an interpreter
available for each of them.  Thank you for reminding me.

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

Deaf people.  They brought their own problems. ... :-)

> > 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.

I don't believe you.  Where do you get your numbers from?

And, just speaking ASL doesn't count; there are many people with normal
hearing who learn ASL for various reasons.  My brother learned it because
there was a deaf woman who attended his church, and the church offered to
teach it to anyone in the congregation who was interested.  I'm talking
about people who can't hear and/or speak and for whom ASL is their method of
"spoken" communication.  I wouldn't expect a doctor to provide a Spanish
interpreter just because a patient had the ability to speak 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.

Last I heard, there was no official American language.  And, a lot of
immigrants (and all Ebonics speakers) are in the US because they had no
choice.

> > 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.

If you'll permit me to translate that into English, you're saying you can't
explain it, so you'll try to claim it's irrelevant.

> We're talking about communication.  Physical access is a whole different
> issue.

And the ADA doesn't deal with physical access? Access is access; physical or
verbal.  You're just as dead if you get the wrong information.

> You're just throwing in other situtations to try and confuse
> the real issue.

No.  I'm throwing in other situations to try and show that the real issue is
already confused.  This problem isn't as black versus white, or good versus
evil, as Mike has tried to claim.

> Sorry, didn't work with me, at least.

Doesn't appear to have, Scott.  I think I got to you a bit late.  The damage
had already been done ... :-)