Imagine being pregnant, deaf, afraid and soon to be delivering your second child. Your first child experienced problems and remained hospitalized for almost 3 weeks.
In a controversial lawsuit, a pregnant woman, who is deaf, wants a live sign language interpreter for the delivery of her child rather than a video conferencing machine, also called a video relay system or video remote interpreting (VRI) the Florida hospital plans to use.
Video conferencing equipment and videophones can be used for direct communication between deaf and hard of hearing people and with their hearing family and friends who know American Sign Language (ASL). They can also be used by deaf and hard of hearing people who do not know ASL, but who benefit from access to visual communication cues, including speech reading (National Association of the Deaf).
The Department of Justice's revised final regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (title II and III) state "entities are required to give primary consideration to the choice of aid or service requested by the person who has a communication disability. The state or local government must honor the person's choice, unless it can demonstrate that another equally effective means of communication is available, or that the use of the means chosen would result in a fundamental alteration or in an undue burden" (U.S. Department of Justice).
To the disappointment of the woman, it will most likely be a sign language interpreter on a computer screen - instead of a real person by her bedside - who will serve as the sign language interpreter through the birth of her child.
"In a case that may be a first in the nation, U.S. Magistrate James Hopkins issued a report, finding that the woman did not prove that a video conferencing system violates her rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act" (Palm Beach Post).
The woman shared concerns that a machine won't be able to touch her to get her attention when she is screaming or has her eyes closed while in pain. "The VRIs do not work all the time...It's really serious. What if there was something life-threatening that happened during the delivery?" (Hyman, 2015).
In another interview, she stated "A translator stationed at a remote location, being beamed in via video-conferencing technology - is not sufficient..."When I'm giving birth I can't see everything that's going on with a monitor - I have to change position, close my eyes. There are technical problems. That's not effective communication."(Greenfield, 2015)
The hospital's "portable VRI machine is a laptop computer which can fit in small places where an in-person interpreter might not be able to fit". The woman "explains that an in-person interpreter is preferable because during her first childbirth, her interpreter was able to crouch down and kneel on the floor" (Palm Beach Post).
The woman also said "this is not effective communication for a woman giving birth and ultimately a violation of the American Disabilities Act. No one can sit there in labor and just watch a fixed screen.. "You can't do that. It's much better to have a live interpreter that's mobile and can move around. It's a lot more comfortable. They can lean over. They can get in a different spot." (Hyman, 2015)
According to the letter of the law, an in-room translator is not required. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) says hospitals must provide an effective means of communication, but does not specifically state what constitutes "effective".
What are your thoughts about this case? Is this the spirit of the law?
Any deaf nurses who have used sign language interpreters or video conferencing during childbirth?
Can any L&D nurses shed light? How effective are video conferencing/interpreting relay systems?
Any nurses who are sign language interpreters?
Sharing experiences and insight helps us all to grow in our understanding.
References
Greenfield, B. (2015). Why a Deaf Woman Is Suing the Hospital Where She Plans to Give Birth. Accessed on July 16, 1015
Hyman, A. (2015) Hearing-impaired pregnant woman sues Bethesda Hospital, wants interpreter. Accessed on July 16, 2015
Musgrave, J. (2015) Deaf Boynton woman may not get live interpreter during childbirth. Accessed on July 15
National Association of the Deaf. Video Relay Service. Accessed July 15, 2015 Page not found | National Association of the Deaf.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights SectionAccessed on July 16, 2015 Revised ADA Requirements: Effective Communication
