IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v33y2025i3p14..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sterile, religiously neutral, and colourblind: on religious symbols in healthcare

Author

Listed:
  • Naoual El Yattouti

Abstract

This article explores the right of caregivers to wear religious dress in Europe, focusing on four countries: France, Belgium, the UK, and the Netherlands. It highlights the varying approaches to secularism, with stricter scrutiny on prohibitions in the UK and the Netherlands, while France and Belgium lean towards a form of outward neutrality that prohibits religious symbols, particularly in public services. While prohibitions on religious dress for caregivers might aim to protect the rights to equal treatment of patients, it raises concerns about its compatibility with equality law. Despite a shared European human rights framework, these policies result in inconsistent legal outcomes across countries, challenging the principles of non-discrimination and religious freedom. The article also questions the justification of blanket bans under health and safety standards, emphasizing the need for reasonable accommodation. Furthermore, it stresses that any restrictions on religious dress that are in place to protect the rights and freedoms of others should be based on objective, evidence-based reasoning. In this sense, patients’ perceptions of religious symbols should not be generalized, especially considering the rights of minoritized or religious patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Naoual El Yattouti, 2025. "Sterile, religiously neutral, and colourblind: on religious symbols in healthcare," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 1-14..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:3:p:14.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwaf023
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:3:p:14.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.