When a consumer remains reluctant to work with an interpreter, practitioners will need to make a judgment about whether the meeting can proceed without one, or whether the ability to meet duty of care requirements will be compromised. Legal obligations under the Mental Health Act 2014 may supersede other considerations, compelling services to call an interpreter against the client's wishes in some situations.
Adan, a 41 year old Kurdish woman from Syria attends your service after being referred to you through intake. You have organised a Kurdish speaking female interpreter to be present for the appointment, however Adan has brought her cousin along who tells you that Adan would prefer if she interpreted for her.
After some questioning, it becomes clear that Adan is unaware that interpreters are bound by confidentiality and are professionally trained. She was very worried the interpreter would talk to others about details from the interview. Once this is explained, Adan relaxes and agrees to commence the appointment with you and the interpreter. You reiterate confidentiality at the beginning of the interview and ask if Adan has any other concerns which she denies. At her next appointment, Adan again insists that her cousin does the interpreting and does not wish to use the same female interpreter. On meeting with Adan and her cousin, you explore her reasons and she cites a number of concerns related to the interpreter. Adan believes that the interpreter is from a close geographical region in Syria and she believes they share the same religion. As a result Adan is fearful of people in the community knowing.
What are some alternatives you can suggest to Adan?