Is your relay call really necessary? A short review of online deaf Hard of Hearing responses...
#1 I thought relay systems were obsolete? as we can text, email etc most people now, indeed they prefer that method. I have easy access to my GP this way and the NHS, also to 999, I am not comfortable with video access because sign relay is nil use to me.
#2 I gather there isn't a great take-up of it by the deaf either?
#3 A LOT of deaf sign users don't phone or text anyone outside their peer area leaving it to hearing relatives, or interpreters most are on first names with. One statistic suggested less than 34% actually use dedicated access lines or make their own calls to them.
#4 Sign Relay claims a lot do use them but when I asked for a breakdown of the stats they refused me them. E.G. One deaf person using the relay system 6 times, is NOT 6 deaf people using the system, It suggested 'creative' statistics, but all these deaf charities make up their own statistics.
#5 It is a deafie job-creation scheme for themselves innit, like cultural advocates, deaf awareness, deaf arts, and BSL trainers... money for old rope they know hearing haven't a clue.
#6 There was a campaign to stop family assisting deaf people wasn't there? because it was killing access campaigns and demand other deaf were campaigning for, seriously hampering neutral support, and confusing inclusion demands. One deaf area at odds with the other.
#7 Yeah I saw that the BDA and RNID challenged the campaign as an 'attack on choice'. The campaign also lobbied NHS insurance companies on the grounds if a family assist, created health issues for their deaf relative, then the NHS could be sued for non-provision of neutral support. Hearing relatives were known to withhold health details. Justified on the grounds their deaf relatives wouldn't understand them.
#8 Yeah cushty if the deafie is making a will, or needs banking help lol.
#9 Haha, attack on the BDA/RNID/SIGN HEALTH money-making scheme more like it. Suggesting poor access as a drive for more demand for their help, more help means more reliance means more help etc... a charity perpetuation scheme.
#10 It was pointed out every time a hearing relative was used, deaf were not getting neutral advice or help, and relatives were making decisions for them, which was the campaign's primary point, but it seems a lot of deaf are more than happy to let relatives take the decisions for them, even using underage hearing children, which is, in fact, illegal in the NHS and social services could get involved.
#11 Can you actually imagine a deaf person attending an STI clinic with their family, an unwanted pregnancy, or a vasectomy e.g? There has to be a limit on how much anyone deaf or hearing would want their family there making those decisions or calls, or knowing about them, doesn't the Hippocratic Oath matter any more?
#12 Nope, although the deaf patient should be asked to sign a form exonerating the NHS if a hearing relative fouls up.
#13 This should apply to Interpreters, but. a legal case said there is no blame can be attached to an interpreter who gives wrong or poor advice, or has misunderstood themselves what a medico was saying, or misunderstood the level of understanding of their deaf client, by default it becomes 'hearsay' so not admissible as evidence. When a deaf person uses 'support' they accept that, even in dealing with social service systems. The deaf has to accept that by using an interpreter they are happy with what is relayed to them. Ditto the interpreters, they cannot be held responsible for the fact deaf haven't understood clearly, because there is no way to determine how much detail they can follow.
#14 Interpreters mostly do not have any specialisation in health matters at all, e.g. a level 4 qualification is NOT a qualification in health matters, which requires specialist training over and above 'he said she said'. Level 4 BSL interpreters were used in a mental health deaf clinic in England and were cited as unqualified to be doing that job as they had no experience in mental health, which eventually resulted in deaf patients being abused. The assumption was a qualified BSL interpreter or assistant is qualified in every area.
#15 This isn't for a lip-speaker, where specialisation has to be undertaken before they can work in specific areas e.g. courts, it is concerning sign support demand little or no specialisation.