Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Christian nurse set to appeal cross case


A Christian nurse has confirmed she plans to appeal after losing her discrimination-at-work case over wearing a necklace with a cross.

The European Convention on Human Rights ruled that Shirley Chaplin’s rights had not been violated when her employer insisted that she had to stop wearing the crucifix for health and safety reasons.

Ms Chaplin, 57, from Exeter, was transferred to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter Trust Hospital after she refused to remove the cross, which she said she had been wearing to work for three decades.

She explained that she had no regret over her actions and felt she had to “stand up for my faith”.

But the judges decided her rights had not been impeded, agreeing that her religious rights were outweighed by any health and safety concerns.

Speaking after the ruling, Ms Chaplin explained that she has worn the crucifix since she was 16 and throughout her nursing career which began in 1978.

She added: “I’ve worn it without incident. I’ve nursed a very wide range of patients. I’ve been bitten, I’ve been scratched, I’ve had computers thrown at me but no one has ever, ever grabbed my crucifix,” she added.

“To say it’s a health and safety risk, I really don’t agree with that at all. We intend to appeal and take it back to the European Court.”

Hospital officials said they had suggested a number of ways Ms Chaplin could still wear the cross, such as concealing it under her uniform, but she had refused.

Her case was first heard at an Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2010, but her complaint was not upheld.

Ms Chaplin was one of four British Christians who brought religious discrimination-at-work cases against the Government at the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judges ruled that three of the four, including Ms Chaplin, had not had their rights violated, but they ruled that British Airways worker Nadia Eweida had suffered discrimination after being told not to wear her white gold cross so visibly at work.



Readers' comments (66)

  • tinkerbell

    wish you every success with this Shirley. As a Christian myself, although unconventional and not into religious dogma, i wear a small crucifix and it has never been an issue. It isn't visible to anyone as i don't wear low necklines, but even if it was why should it cause offense?

    If other religions, turbans, burkas are tolerated why discriminate? So long as we are not hindered from carrying out our jobs.

    Some nurses wear other peices of jewellary with raised diamonds on rings, studs in noises, etc., etc., and although these are a hazard during personal care and not compliant with infection control nothing happens.

    Double standards?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • was it really a health and safety issue? it does not sound very convincing as it would be highly unlikely to cause harm; and harm to whom - nurse or patients?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Peter Goble

    The point at issue here is that this nurse intends to communicate her personal beliefs to others by wearing a religious symbol. She is doing this non-verbally, but communicating unsolicited personal information all the same.

    In my opinion, giving this unasked-for personal information is professionally questionable, to say the least. Hospital patients are vulnerable, and their relationship with carers is not that of equals. Patients do not easily respond to nurse-led communication of any kind, and are not well-placed to respond to non-verbal communication.

    This nurse doesn't seem to have given this much consideration, and in my opinion she has a professional duty to do so, and ought to account for her apparent
    breach of that duty to her peers.

    I've not seen any evidence that the NMC has commented on this, but that doesn't surprise me at all.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Peter Goble | 18-Jan-2013 2:35 pm

    it is very difficult to operate in a world with so many differences of opinion and judgements passed on the behaviour of others. what is the way forward so that each and everyone can be respected for who they are?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What a waste of time and money!! Has this helped religious freedom and self-expression - no! The whole issue has made her look like a self-centred, money-grabbing, religious nut and has put back the issue of religious expression and tolerance decades.

    Ms Chaplin should be ashamed of herself - How many tens of thousand of pounds has this cost so far; money which should be spent on patient care and service delivery not on some individuals whim.

    If the display of a crucifix was a religous necessity (as laid out in religious text) I could understand it, (even though I don't personally believe it to be right). However, this is just one individuals take on her faith. It does not have the unquestioning support of any Christian doctrine.

    It seems to me her Trust has bent over backwards to be reasonable and to help; they offered numerous options for her to continue her previous roles which would allow her to continue wearing her cross & provided her with an alternative job. The fact is that had she chosen to wear the cross under her uniform (i.e. with her uniform neck fastened-up) no one would have been aware of the issue, no one would have been put "at risk" and no one would have got worked-up about it. Instead, she wasn't content and chose to become a martyr, make the issue political in the hope some other misguided souls join her in her mission.

    Just because she says she has never harmed anyone with her cross before doesn't give her the right to continue to put patients at risk (I suggest any misguided individual thinking differently should review their code of professional conduct and consult any reputable medical law book on the "thin skull rule").

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • tinkerbell

    things swinging and dangling across a patient like lanyards with name badges should also be banned. I have asked many a nurse reaching across a patient during personal care to tuck them into their uniforms so we don't take someones eye out.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • what about nuns who nurse patients?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Peter Goble

    Yes, Anonymous, it is difficult to operate in this complex world, and that's why nurses undergo a rigorous professional training designed to equip them for that world, and to make good decisions for those they serve.

    Your question is a good one and there is, of course, no ready-made answer to it. We have to work these things out for ourselves in ever-changing circumstances, which tends to support my point about training.

    No-one reasonably expects us to make perfect decisions, but decisions about what to communicate about ourselves in our professional role is fairly straightforward, and is under our control. It's also fairly basic that we don't offer information about ourselves except under very limited circumstances, and certainly not to everyone, and without being asked.

    That's what this nurse did when she deliberately exhibited her cross to her patients. It might have been useful to ask her what her intentiions were by doing so, and challenging her responses.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Peter Goble

    Nuns, unless uinder training in secular institutions, usually work within their religious institutions, and patients may exercise some choice about where they are cared for.

    Patients would expect to be cared for by a nun in a convent hospital, and that uniformity would not challenge their expectations so much as to cause dissonance or discomfort. A patient might feel bold enough to say "I don't like nuns" or "I'm not a Christian" in such circumstances, although a few might not.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Peter Goble

    Tinkerbell, it's not about giving offence, it's about you advertising your personal beliefs to someone who may not wish to know you personally. Why do you want to advertise your personal beliefs to every patient you encounter? Do you believe that this will make you seem more effective in their eyes, or more effective than nurses who don't need to tell their patients who they are 'personally' as distinct from professionally?

    You don't need to answer these questions, but I hope you may reflect on your answers honestly and - dare I say it - professionally and maturely.

    I'm sure you were taught early on that it is unwise to share personal information with your patients, and the reasons behind this precept. Sometimes the best answer to a personal question such as "Are you married, nurse?" or "Do you have children?" is a nice smile, and perhaps the polite rejoinder "Why do you ask?". This may help the patient to tell you what prompted their question, and that may illuminate a problem or a concern of theirs.

    If it's idle curiosity, or a "chat-up line", then you'll know how to reply.

    This is really first-year professional learning, or used to be!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 102050results per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs