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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PubMed
Published
2025-07-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwaf023
Primary Topic
Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Naoual El Yattouti
1 links
PubMed
Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies
article

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

Naoual El Yattouti
article en

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.

PubMedVol. 33(3)
University of Antwerp (BE)
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.