- What do you want, a Basque doctor or an automatic translator? An automatic translator is on the way in Osakidetza, with the aim of increasing the presence of the Basque Country, as they have explained. It's not credible, and there's an example enough to prove it.
Diagnostic tests come exclusively in Spanish, even if they are official documents or are requested in Basque. Why don't they translate to Basque? Bilingual itineraries have also been requested to offer a service in Basque from primary to specialized care, but Osakidetza has not developed them. However, when we have started to write in Basque above all the obstacles, the automatic translator becomes a means of payment. Not to promote the presence of the Basque Country, but to translate texts in Basque into Spanish, for the benefit of the Castilian speakers.
The automatic translator can be good, translate to Spanish what has been written in Basque with excellence. But that shows that it's just a translator. It cannot demonstrate whether it makes contributions to offer health care in Basque safely, so it is not valid. In fact, the best measure to ensure patient safety is linguistic parity, that is, that the health worker and the user speak the same language, and not in any case, but enough to overcome misunderstandings and linguistic limitations. When this is not possible, the most recommendable is a professional translator in order and no translator found ad hoc. Translation of texts (e.g. medical history) requires professional translation. Automatic translators are not used in health care. For Canadian French-speakers, for example, it is unthinkable, even humiliating, the opposite of the ethics and equity that health activity requires. On the other hand, it is known that there is no judge who accepts automatic translation.
Because that's what the machine translation has to prove: not that it's a good translation tool, but that it guarantees patient safety. Impossible, made in vain
The machine translation can do a good translation, of course, but it does not foresee anything. It will improve patient safety and satisfaction. I guess not. Optionally, it is better a doctor who knows Euskera, a doctor who does not know Euskera than with the translation of a text in Euskera. If the two were to be compared, who would sign the permission to participate in an absurd investigation? Which ethics committee would agree to compare an activity (linguistic parity) that has proved its suitability with another that is not acceptable and can be dangerous nowhere?
Because that's what the machine translation has to prove: not that it's a good translation tool, but that it guarantees patient safety. Impossible, useless.
Itzulbide shows that: That the Plans of the Basque Country of Osakidetza are not evidence-based, do not consider patients or clinicians. They are plans made by non-medical technicians tailored to an address by Osakidetza erdaldun. In the absence of ideas, the oxen persecuted them. First you have to put the oxen, then the cart. First of all, if they really want to increase the presence of the Basque Country, to offer diagnostic tests in Basque and to provide health care through the development of itineraries in Basque. Then the futures and the automatic translation will come, because we don't need it anymore.