proficient in english have a due process rights like english speakers to receive freezing information about psychotropic medications in a language they can understand does the language barrier mean that they should not have medication information that they can read interpreter that her psychiatrist did not give her the medication information in polish and the record shows that she didn't ops in fact fully understand the medication information i wish she said it was to make her happy and that is indeed what the doctor had told her the doctor testified that's how she described the medication to her when the doctor testified she described other side other benefits including a decrease in paranoia code recognizes that people may have different levels of understanding whether stupid's is their symptoms of mental illness whether perhaps a certain level of reading comprehension or their limited english proficiency call were to accept the state's argument that an interpreter is sufficient then there would be no need to provide written information to english a person does not have complete written medication information they they cannot make a decision they are not fully informed to make a decision about the medication now this is a requirement that has to be proven by the state question of how much english she spoke whether even if she spoke conversational english really well does that mean she could understand medical terminology really well well enough to comply with the co lacked capacity to make a reasoned decision about the medication and without that medication information if responding does not have that medication information writing the state cannot prove that but  also it's it's necessary to comply with the code to protect the respondents due process rights and it has other there are voluntarily and that is preferred under the call from ontario treatment people may not agree to something that they do not understand if a person has written information the person could share that with friends and family and have a discussion with  people close to her to help make her how to make the decision and if you object room from english to polish and then submit it to where she can review it and then maybe if she has any question she can you know present them to the interpreter or we can be raised with their lawyer if the so even if there had  been a polish document explaining all these things but the record doesn't reflect that it was presented because nobody submitted evidence that would be a pai compliance with that because she did not take her medications which is how she ended up as an inpatient in elevation and her team were ultimately release date is twenty eighteen so this is something that's c suits that this is in fact strict compliance there is no argument by my counts opposing counsel that in fact the doctor jordan gave the respondent written information regarding the  appointed an interpreter for the proceedings in her contact with her attorney and there's no evidence you know on the record that she spoke in any english have to proceed ins so i think the only logical reference is that she in fact needed a and at the end counsel indicated she's going to consult with her client after the proceeding that's it ph who worked on page ten when we started hearing defense counsel indicates that she has consulted with her record at page sixty seven cousens argument is that she's aware of what these medications are for why they're administered to people then she proceeds with she has an understanding of what they're used for and she also has an understanding that could have an adverse side effect i think that is in fact waiver of any argument that she needed to be provided the medications in polish her counsel is stating that she specifically on the record that this respondent understands these medications that sh who she was she in fact received strict compliance with the statute because she received written notice of the medications the whole argument here is whether it's sufficient if she's given that in english with an that's the first sentence the last sentence of that paragraph is that if the respondent is unable to communicate effectively in english the facility shall make a reasonable efforts to provide services to the she responded in a language that the use of interpreters and that's part of the reason the more lying on the the provision of the written information with access to the interpreter is statutorily sufficient and in fact there was truckers to interpret the written documents that are going to be submitted to the native tongue of the particular point i would be happy if you would nor might waive her argument and went ahead and with what's happened with the statute and clearly that has been achieved here because counsel argues that in fact she understood the medications and she therefore made a recent decision to refuse that her whole argument is based understands what these medications do it would have been beneficial to say and what do they do or did you read the document that you understand english or did you have the document explain the record that demonstrates that she is asked why she is refusing them and she her statements are that she can make herself better first of all she doesn't believe that she is mentally ill she doesn't believe her depression is a mental illness she doesn't believe that she needs medication her statements are that she would be able to overcome her depression without intervening medication so that is in fact you know they have it's worth the fact that regardless of whether you give this woman information in polish or english she's going to refuse her past history demonstrates that the doctor said she absolutely freezes medication she's in this road so what you just told us was this woman thinks that she doesn't need it and i thought the reason for the explanation for why i didn't take these drugs or what these drugs are all about is to weigh the benefits argues that while it is required it is that the responding to given an opportunity to sign the materials at the time and in the manner she chooses and that is exactly what happened here  she was in dr jordan testified that she discussed with the polish interpreter the of alternatives of treatment and then when she tried to give the respondent read the information if you are an english speaker and i gave you the information dr jordan will not proceed down the hallway and stuff you until you need it and we won't force you to read that information d jordan's obligation is fulfilled when she gives it to their spawn and they had the opportunity and that's what happened here she gave them the respond it the information and respond instead i'll go over it with the interpreter her client still in this case the whole case law says that what is important is that the response would be given the opportunity to go over the information at their leisure and in the manner they want and this is exactly what happened in this case she's given medication information and she says she'll go over there polish interpreter counsel suggested that if you go off the internet and get the information you know we all know that it's on the internet it's true so i have some disagreement with that and in fact there's more control for the accuracy if you get the information in english because then if the interpreter has a question dr jordan or a staff member can go over the terms if it's in polish you know dr jordan is not going to be able to you the advice be consistent with the finest building to understand the information communicated i believe that that was clearly complying with by giving her the english translation and the coalition to put her in fact that's better because so i think you know that directs how the person can understand those two prior sections i tend to this summer and i'm for out of state are written both french and english and he suggested that when they wrote an opinion the opinion written by the arabs were written in the language of the loser which was then translated into the language of the winner ever be it a different one fine but the point was that whatever the language was of the losers the opinion written so that the loser would understand in his own  promise they made some sense except that i think the best solution is they're provided with something gives a wish and then a translation there so they're the best of both worlds the nuances of the translation plus providing boards the petition in the court orders in the foreign language this is in english speaking in language there are a number of dialects  and polish in spanish and the predominant ones are in this area but certainly someone who speak swahili is not any less intitled to understand what's going on then you know the more dominant foreign languages i would are i don't see there was slavery here i don't see that the state argued way for the state argued what occurred there arrangement that occurred is sufficient and if it's not sufficient there was harmless er now going back to whether the purpose of this statute was fully achieved it was not because this she did not have full information she only understood that what her doctor told her which was the interpreter questions is an interpreter qualified to answer questions about medication but doctors qualified to answer those questions and to say that she could talk to the interpreter when she chose to that's shifting the burden on her to actually talk to the interpreter and the case law shows that no one court i believe in that is this court said it's common that respondents don't want to talk to the doctors that's why it's even more incompetent for the answers the question that some that scientists in the question but i did read that medicaid that in terms of medical information should be provided about a sixth or seventh grade level that's what the national institutes of health s facility understands this person speaks polish i will give them information polish that's consistent with their capability of understanding and they will they would have met their  burden and the court has not required that the person actually understand it because the person may not read the information now  dates argument about that that services must be provided reasonable efforts must be made to provide services in the language for the person understands services is not the right information services refers to care and treatment including psychotropic medication and it could include therapy and so on some so that's a different question here