VRI Best Used with Other Interpretation, Prez Said
“However, even Fisher [President of Deaf Talk} concedes that VRI [Video Remote Interpreting] is best when used as part of a package of interpretation services offered by a hospital.
“We provide immediate communication to get people started,” he says. “VRI is meant to be used as a supplement to other types of interpretation.”  http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1107783337457
Deaf patients want live interpretation
 “There is one lawsuit in Maryland; everyone else loves our system,†he [Dave Stauffer, company vice president and co-owner of DeafTalk, a VRI company] said.
He categorized Johnson’s church as troublemakers.” http://www.examiner.com/a-03994~Deaf_patients_want_live_interpretation.html
Trouble makers? Nice, eh? VRI doesn’t meet all the communication needs of Deaf people and can actually endanger our lives at times. Yet if we object, we are called ‘trouble makers’. This says a lot about the mentality of DeafTalk administrators, who admitted elsewhere that VRI is meant to be used with other form of interpretetion.
Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
This was in response to a lawsuit filed against another Maryland hospital today for using VRI when she wanted live interpreters:
 http://www.examiner.com/a-703995~Deaf_woman_sues_Maryland_Medical_System_for_poor_treatment.html
Lawsuit against Laurel Regional HospitalÂ
Three years ago, after repeated denials to my requests for interpreters by the hospital who sent me home with one condition fatal if not treated, I got fed up, did extensive research and organized a group lawsuit of seven defendants against the hospital for multiple civil right violations. During my research, I found out that even the people promoting Deaf Talk were saying privately that it has limits and shouldn’t be used alone in some cases. This legal reporter of the law magazine contacted the president of Deaf Talk and he admitted that VRI is meant to be used as a supplement to other types of interpretation. This article explains in full details the issues at the hospital prompting the lawsuit and shared different perspectives from various parties. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1107783337457
Department of Justice
The Department of Justice agreed that the mandatory use of VRI against the wishes of Deaf patients violates ADA, acknowledging the limitations of VRI. For the first time, with my landmark case, DOJ had decreed that the deaf patients can choose whatever method they feel best fit to their needs, live interpreters, VRI, paper and pen, or lipreading etc.
“i.    Provide to Patients and Companions any appropriate auxiliary aids and services that may be necessary for effective communication after making the assessment described below, including, but not limited to, access to Qualified Interpreters appearing either in person at the Hospital or through video interpreting services, assistive listening devices, assistive listening systems, pictograph forms and flash cards, and computer-assisted real time transcription;” http://www.ada.gov/laurelco.htm
This is a new interpretation of ADA, a federal law that supersedes all state laws. No longer can the hospitals legally force all deaf patients to accept video remote interpreting against their wishes.  Yet we see many hospitals violating this national model set up by Dept of Justice, betting that many deaf people will meekly accept this illegal treatment and not complaining. Even when Deaf people protest, they still refuse.
Go for it, Alma!
From another blogger who faces a similiar problem with his local hospital: http://surdus.blogspot.com/2007/05/412-tuesday-morning-news-coffee-pet.html
e-mail contact: mishkazena@aol.com
Copyright TMÂ MishkaZena 2007
“However, even Fisher [President of Deaf Talk} concedes that VRI [Video Remote Interpreting] is best when used as part of a package of interpretation services offered by a hospital.
“We provide immediate communication to get people started,” he says. “VRI is meant to be used as a supplement to other types of interpretation.”  http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1107783337457
Deaf patients want live interpretation
 “There is one lawsuit in Maryland; everyone else loves our system,†he [Dave Stauffer, company vice president and co-owner of DeafTalk, a VRI company] said.
He categorized Johnson’s church as troublemakers.” http://www.examiner.com/a-03994~Deaf_patients_want_live_interpretation.html
Trouble makers? Nice, eh? VRI doesn’t meet all the communication needs of Deaf people and can actually endanger our lives at times. Yet if we object, we are called ‘trouble makers’. This says a lot about the mentality of DeafTalk administrators, who admitted elsewhere that VRI is meant to be used with other form of interpretetion.
Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
This was in response to a lawsuit filed against another Maryland hospital today for using VRI when she wanted live interpreters:
 http://www.examiner.com/a-703995~Deaf_woman_sues_Maryland_Medical_System_for_poor_treatment.html
Lawsuit against Laurel Regional HospitalÂ
Three years ago, after repeated denials to my requests for interpreters by the hospital who sent me home with one condition fatal if not treated, I got fed up, did extensive research and organized a group lawsuit of seven defendants against the hospital for multiple civil right violations. During my research, I found out that even the people promoting Deaf Talk were saying privately that it has limits and shouldn’t be used alone in some cases. This legal reporter of the law magazine contacted the president of Deaf Talk and he admitted that VRI is meant to be used as a supplement to other types of interpretation. This article explains in full details the issues at the hospital prompting the lawsuit and shared different perspectives from various parties. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1107783337457
Department of Justice
The Department of Justice agreed that the mandatory use of VRI against the wishes of Deaf patients violates ADA, acknowledging the limitations of VRI. For the first time, with my landmark case, DOJ had decreed that the deaf patients can choose whatever method they feel best fit to their needs, live interpreters, VRI, paper and pen, or lipreading etc.
“i.    Provide to Patients and Companions any appropriate auxiliary aids and services that may be necessary for effective communication after making the assessment described below, including, but not limited to, access to Qualified Interpreters appearing either in person at the Hospital or through video interpreting services, assistive listening devices, assistive listening systems, pictograph forms and flash cards, and computer-assisted real time transcription;” http://www.ada.gov/laurelco.htm
This is a new interpretation of ADA, a federal law that supersedes all state laws. No longer can the hospitals legally force all deaf patients to accept video remote interpreting against their wishes.  Yet we see many hospitals violating this national model set up by Dept of Justice, betting that many deaf people will meekly accept this illegal treatment and not complaining. Even when Deaf people protest, they still refuse.
Go for it, Alma!
From another blogger who faces a similiar problem with his local hospital: http://surdus.blogspot.com/2007/05/412-tuesday-morning-news-coffee-pet.html
e-mail contact: mishkazena@aol.com
Copyright TMÂ MishkaZena 2007
May 1st, 2007 at 8:24 am
Jesus was a troublemaker also.
This president of DeafTalk seems very, very prejudiced and just in it for the money.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:45 am
Bottom line is money is the issue for these organizations. It’s sad to think that the days of thinking about the best possible care for the patient - integrity in care and integrity in service provision - are long gone.
it’s true about Deaf people meekly accepting things. The Bible says “the meek shall inherit the earth” but I do think that was added later…. Jesus certainly wasn’t meek in that whole moneylender-temple story! But many Deaf people are sooo used to just sitting and nodding their heads yes and taking whatever they can get.
Worse, SICK people don’t often have a lot of freedom to advocate for themselves…
May 1st, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Hi -
I’m not sure if I understand what it was all about. VRI? I heard about it most recently on deafnewspaper.
I may be wrong but it look like it may be no difference with using VRI and Interpreter request at hospital?
I think there was already a law that all hospital are required to get interpreter in any kind circumstance.
Help me if I’m wrong.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Ah, the rise of greedy and anti-altruist Capitalism and the atlas is shrugging.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Addendum:
TV news reported last week that in the not-too-distant future a doctor does not have to see a hearing patient. All he would do would be to turn
TV on and talk in his office or in the hall. He would not be able to see the real good close look at a patient’s
face which could show symptons.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I am so very much impressed with Joseph Raimound who demonstrates intelligence and wisdom as depicted in his blog. May he become president of the NAD someday!
May 1st, 2007 at 6:12 pm
A couple of weeks ago I received an email from a friend with a link on a video made by a deaf Colorado woman who explained her first experience with VRI. She was confused at first and was approached by a reporter who wanted to do a story on this new VRI in hospital as she was the “first one” in Colorado. Her response, she liked it. Has anyone seen that video?
May 1st, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Joseph, yup, it is due to saving money.
SH, in the past, deaf patients were forced to accept VRI when they prefered live interpreters. With the landmark case of mine, they now have the right.
Jean, ugh. it’ll be a sad day when we don’t see human doctors. Joseph is a talented writer with a passion for social justice!
C, I saw that vlog. I cringed how she described the hospital personnel rejecting her requests for interpreters. Thank goodness she was able to use VRI so she did benefit from it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 am
It was very clever of Congress to ask to see the Sorenson’s videophone demonstrated by the NAD not long ago, Congress thought it
was terrific. Now I understand
why. VP is very useful for doctors who do not have to receive outpatients in their offices or to pay a visit to a patient in the hospital.
All doctors would do would be to look at a log jotted down by a nurse and turn TV on
for a two minute chat. Today’s Hippocrates’ Oath is different.