This study and detailed analysis provide examples of the way in which interpreters tend to align themselves with institutions and to strengthen institutional voice, often at the expense of the voices of other participants, in this case the patients. Far from acting as ‘advocates’ for the patients, interpreters perform the role of informational gatekeepers whose main priority is to keep the interview ‘on track’ and the physician on schedule. To this end, they often interpret selectively, and often offer their own answers to patients’ questions without the physician necessarily being aware of it. While accepting that interpreters can never act as conduits or mere echoes, the author insists that they can nevertheless interpret evenly, and that they do not have to work as an extra gatekeeping layer in medical setting. The slippage between what they are officially expected or asked to do and what they actually do allows the practice to continue unmonitored and unevaluated.