I've been thinking about ethics lately, at least partly because my NAATI accreditation is up for renewal soon and there is an ethics component to the revalidation criteria but there have been a few other items that have piqued my attention as well.
I once somewhat facetiously wrote that most ethics can be summed up as 'play nice' and I still think that this is not far wrong. In fact, I would say that most codes of ethics can probably boil down to 'don't abuse people's trust in you'. There are a lot of details but I think this is the key point. For example, the AUSIT code of ethics (sitting next to me as I type this) warns against misusing inside information, breaching confidentiality or undertaking work beyond your abilities, which all seem to be relatively unrelated. However, these are all cases where a client has chosen to trust you, whether that be trusting you will keep their secrets or that you are as good as you say you are, and in all cases unethical behaviour results from an abuse of that trust.
Of course, it is not only the client's trust that we are required to keep. Requirements such as being professional are at least partly about other translators and bringing associations such as NAATI or AUSIT or the profession as a whole into disrepute. Other parties that trust us include the readers, hence the exhortations for accuracy and impartiality. The readers can't always check the source document for themselves (at least not easily) and rely on us to report the true meaning of the original as closely as we can. I think a part of this also includes avoiding the appearance of impropriety but this is something I would like to return to later.
In general, I think that most people try to do the right thing (if you're not one of these people, this discussion probably doesn't apply to you. You may be excused early) and most ethical dilemmas are likely to be the result of conflicting interests. An example of this occurred a few months ago (I'm omitting any details in case I make a mistake and because they're not really the point I'm getting at) when a company got in to trouble for selling a defective product. A translator was asked to translate some internal documents that, among other things, discussed how the company could hide the extent of this from the public or at least limit the fallout. Now, on the one hand, the translator is bound to be objective (the AUSIT code of ethics states a translator or interpreter should decline a job if they feel they cannot be objective) and maintain confidentiality but on the other hand, the translator may feel she has a duty to the public to reveal what has been said (as far as I can tell AUSIT doesn't cover whistle blowing). Of course, it is not that simple and other factors also come into play and need to be considered (e.g. what are the repercussions of speaking out vs not speaking out? Are people I know going to be personally affected one way or another? Is there a third option? Whatever happens, can I live with myself afterwards?) but I think this is at least a part of the issue. I realise that this barely scratches the surface of a complex topic and in many cases states the obvious but this is just a starting point for the conversation, not the final word.
A point that I wanted to come back to was avoiding the appearance of impropriety. I feel that this is a topic closely related to ethics because regardless of whether you have done something wrong, the appearance that you have brings about a similar result, namely, people doubt their trust in you and question your past and future actions. There are a couple of examples that I have noticed recently that I invite you to consider but keep in mind that there is no proof of unethical behaviour. These are activities that may be as innocent as is claimed but that look damning, or at best a little questionable, to outside observers.
First, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has updated its ethical guidelines recently. However, in doing so they have acted to prevent the updated guidelines from undergoing public scrutiny, which is considered by some to be an essential part of the process, and the ethics committee responsible for the guidelines was quietly disbanded, so quietly that the members of the committee were not told it had disbanded. As far as I can tell, the college has not given any reasons other than to say they no longer intend to have a public-consultation process. They may not have technically done anything wrong but some of their actions appear to be unethical in relation to their member physicians and certainly appear suspect to outsiders. More can be read here.
Another example that has been in the headlines recently is the misuse of entitlements by MPs on both sides of Australian politics. For those who are unaware, Australian MPs can claim to have the government pay for work related travel expenses and it has recently come to light that many MPs have been claiming travel entitlements incorrectly (in all fairness, it is not always entirely clear what is eligible to be claimed and what is not). However, this starts looking bad when the Prime Minister refuses to consider clarifying the legislation involved, made $84,000 in dubious claims and even claimed on the expenses incurred when he was spruiking his book. Considering the pillorying Peter Slipper received from the LNP over less than $1000, this certainly looks bad. Tony Abbott is not the only MP involved (I just picked on him because I don't like him), many others claimed travel expenses for weddings in particular (including Tony Abbott going to Peter Slipper's wedding) with very weak justifications of networking etc. Now, much of these claimed travel entitlements have been paid back and some of these claims may even have been legitimate but it seems quite obvious that there was no intention to pay anything back if this had not been brought to the intention of the public. There is no clear distinction here between those who knowingly rorted the system (definitely on the naughty list) and those who were happy to take advantage of a grey area but were willing to pay the money back if they were wrong.
There is one last point that I want to bring up and this relates directly to both AUSIT and NAATI. As I mentioned way back in the beginning, there is an ethics component to NAATI revalidation (For the record, I think the ethics component to the accreditation test is a good idea. It ensures that people who are accredited know what is expected of them). Now this was introduced relatively recently (I think I would have been exempt if I had qualified for accreditation a couple of years earlier) and both AUSIT and NAATI had a say in the revalidation requirements. Both AUSIT and NAATI offer paid courses on ethics that help to meet this requirement. Now, these may have been in place before the revalidation requirements were negotiated or it may even be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing but, seriously, offering a paid course to meet requirements that you had a hand in setting (ethical requirements, no less), that looks pretty bad to me, almost like a misuse of inside information. I haven't taken the courses, so I can't speak to whether or not they are worth the money but I would hope that they are bloody fantastic because otherwise it looks like a cold grab for cash at the expense of people you claim to be representing.
