improving the quality of mental health interpreting in victoria

“detailed descriptions of torture and trauma that may necessarily emerge as part of the
therapeutic process” (Lipton et al., 2002, p. 3). In this process they must “not only listen
empathetically … but they are also required to repeat it, often finding it necessary to locate
language that will appropriately transmit the client’s meaning … without adequate time for
processing the details” (Lipton et al., p. 3-4). This indirect experience of another’s trauma
is recognised as potentially being associated with vicarious traumatisation (Lipton et al.,
2002). Interpreters may feel overwhelmed by the material they must translate, or fear
becoming overwhelmed (p. 3), but at the same time they believe that requirements of
confidentiality prohibit them from seeking personal support. They also may feel a sense of
powerlessness as they had entered the profession with altruistic aspirations of assisting
their compatriots (Lipton et al., 2002). It is pointed out too that interpreters who are
traumatised are at both physical and psychological risk, but many of the interpreters
surveyed had no understanding of these risks associated with their work. For these reasons
Lipton et al. (2002) argue that the mental health system has a duty of care towards the
interpreter.
The area of forensic mental health is particularly problematic. It can be very difficult for
forensic mental health services to retain interpreters because the nature of the work
involves hearing the details of mentally ill forensic patients and their behaviour toward their
victims, who are often family members and children or innocent members of the public.
This type of clinical investigation inevitably conjures up disturbing images which are very
difficult to dissipate from the mind without the provision of professional supervision. The
result may be ‘vicarious traumatisation’ where the person is affected by the details and
images to the extent that they intrude into thoughts at any time, overtake daily life, affect
sleep, create anxiety and fearfulness, and may affect the person’s personal relationships.
This may be particularly so in the case of a sexual crime and the accompanying explicit
forensic investigation.
There are clear procedures in place in mental health services for mental health
professionals to receive debriefing if they have experienced psychological trauma as a result
of their work with clients and families (Better Health Channel, 2004; Debriefing Program,
not dated). These procedures have been implemented to enable staff to cope with their
emotional reactions, which, if not dealt with, may result in quite disabling psychological
symptoms. The Ethnic Mental Health Consultant’s enquiries in 2003 suggested that
mental health service policy does not extend these procedures to interpreters. This may
reflect the relatively invisible status of interpreters in mental health services: whereby the
interpreter’s role is seen as merely ‘a conduit’ or ‘a mouthpiece’ between the
communicating parties. This can be from both the interpreter’s own perspective and that of
the mental health clinician. This position is backed up by a theory of interpreting which
“defines the interpreter as a language facilitator between two or more parties who does not
otherwise participate in the communication” (De Jongh, 1991). If we subscribe to this
idea, we are of course guilty of dehumanising the interpreter whose heart and mind is
always present, despite the expectation of professional distance. Interestingly from a legal
perspective, all parties present, including the interpreter, are considered to be intricately
16