Is translation a waste of paper?
Written by ForeignExchange Translations on Thursday, February 14, 2013
And now it's time for some soul-searching.
At ForeignExchange, we firmly believe that our translations save lives: If our translation mistakenly contains 10 ml instead of 1 ml, a patient could die.
Having said, we are also realists. Are all of the IFUs that we're translating really getting read? No, of course not. In fact, that's a good thing - I know I wouldn't want my surgeon to refer to the IFU while I'm lying on the operating table.
Yet realism is one thing, pessimism another. And the latter comes in the form of a recent article on European IVD regulations that appeared in IVD Technology. The piece contains the following:
For home-use (self-tests) and point-of-care devices, manufacturers may need to include DOCs translated into multiple languages with each product. This is perceived by industry as a waste of paper that will not increase patient safety but will drive up costs.That's pretty harsh. If it's true, then why are we here? Is it enough to work for the sake of work (or a paycheck or profits or to get out of the house)?
How about it? Do you think that translation is a waste of paper?
[Thanks, Mel, for the tip!]
If you have a few more minutes, also take a look at the following:
- 3 steps to successful translation management
- Translation emerging from the corporate basement
- Best practices for managing in-country translation reviews
- On the value of being boring
ForeignExchange provides specialized medical translation services to the world's leading medical device and pharmaceutical companies.
34 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That was Danish, and if people understand it, perhaps they can do without translation when they buy e.g. insulin from Novo Nordisk.
Would you dare?
Translation is a must. Never a waste.
Patients need to know everything about he medical aspects that concern them, the pros and cons and must be in a position to choose and decide for themselves. How can this happen if they are not aware of the implications of the medical management they are subjected to? Not all people are literate enough to read and understand the ICFs written in English while they can pretty well understand Telugu. Imagine the number of patients who might have given consent to some medical procedure written in a foriegn language placing all their trust in their Doctor! Translation eliminates that aspect. After all, how can it be a waste? Reading the ICF thoroughly or not remains the choice of patient now. But no more does he/she remain uninformed or improperly informed.
Of course, I agree with the above comments that Translation is NOT a waste of paper. There is no need to waste more time on this. However, the initiator of this blog should have posted the relevant paragraph in its entirety. The full paragraph is as follows:
"IFUs can be provided electronically, so it is hoped that this will apply to DOCs [Declarations of Conformity] as well, at least for professional-use products. For home-use (self-tests) and point-of-care devices, manufacturers may need to include DOCs translated into multiple languages with each product. This is perceived by industry as a waste of paper that will not increase patient safety but will drive up costs."
So, you realize that in fact, the author is stressing that providing printed documents (instead of e-documents) is perceived by industry as a waste of paper.
The blog should go on commenting on this fact. The author did not say that "translation is a waste of paper."
The entire paper is found at: http://www.ivdtechnology.com/article/eu-ivd-regulation-something-wicked-way-comes
Boumediene Bouali, PhD
Maybe the surgeon, etc ., reads the instructions before use (as it usually says at the beginning).
Seriously, we live in an international environment with international companies who want to sell their products all over the world, and written language(on paper) is the only means of doing this well.
Paper? What paper? My translations become Help files and manuals on cd-roms. Translation needs paper as much as a phone needs a wire.
The opinion is that the DOCs (declarations of comformity) should be provided electronically rather than in printed form. So the issue is not the translation, but the printing of the declaration in however many languages. I do hope you read your source texts more carefully...
Like books, translations are a thing of the past. Our new website for instance accommodates over 200 languages, adds more languages all the time and spells better than I do.
Technologies are surpassed all the time by faster, quicker, cheaper, better versions of themselves.
Let it go already... translations are a thing of the past.
I just visited the website whose article reference you quoted here, and I decided to leave a message via their contact form.
Here it is:
--------------------------------
Hello,
I just received word from a fellow translation agency
(see http://blog.fxtrans.com/2013/02/is-translation-waste-of-paper.html )
pointing out to the following article from your website:
http://www.ivdtechnology.com/article/eu-ivd-regulation-something-wicked-way-comes
There is a paragraph in this article:
"For home-use (self-tests) and point-of-care devices, manufacturers may need to include DOCs translated into multiple languages with each product. This is perceived by industry as a waste of paper that will not increase patient safety but will drive up costs."
1) If the author of this article is serious and professional, he should quote statistics or research that clearly backs such a negative statement about another industry, translation.
2) If the author is making such a negative statement about translations simply based on "rumors" or the comment of just a couple of ignorant (in regard to translation) manufacturers, then he should not expect serious scientists or readers to trust his articles and, thus, he should not be allowed to write here.
I hope your editorial staff takes a good look at this complaint.
Regards,
I. C. Lopez
http://es.linkedin.com/in/icamargo
------------------------
I did not get a confirmation message after pressing the "Send" button, so I am not totally sure the message got to them, but I will let you know if they reply.
Cheers,
Ivette
professional translations and amateur attempts which I call "Translatese". Yes, Translatese is not only a waste of paper, but also a waste of (the client's) money.
Peter Hessel, C.Tran.(Canada)
But, I am quite sure thattt who made such statements is a moron and I do not need to be a genius like Einstein to identify it.
“For home-use (self-tests) and point-of-care devices, manufacturers may need to include DOCs translated into multiple languages with each product. This is perceived by industry as a waste of paper that will not increase patient safety but will drive up costs.”
...translation is no longer a waste of paper, the waste of paper is having the same declaration translated into multiple languages for each language market. And that’s the localizer’s bailiwick.
Comment to the person who posted as:
"Anonymous said...
February 19, 2013 at 3:13 AM"
and said: "I do hope you read your source texts more carefully..."
It almost sounds like you are the author of the quoted article, so I wonder if you are trying to imply now that people (and I suppose translators?) don't know how to read your statements right?
Not a chance. The quoted statement is ambiguous enough to sound as if what it is referring to is that translation is a waste of paper.
Syntax, which has to do with the order of words in a phrase and how that order can affect meaning, in the quoted phrase is clearly ambiguous enough to imply the possibility of considering translation, as well as the use of printed documents, a waste.
Also, for the record, translators usually send clarification queries to the author/provider of the original text when faced with ambiguities like the one that started this thread, and especially medical translators, who often handle very difficult texts.
And paper can be recycled...