 Respiratory Protective Equipment and Facial Hair in Light of COVID-19: Legal and Ethical DilemmasAttila Lakatos SAGE Open, 2021, vol. 11, issue 4, 21582440211060668 Abstract: Facial hair inhibits the functionality of certain respiratory protective equipment, yet employers have a duty of care to provide protection for their employees against communicable respiratory diseases such as COVID-19. Could individuals be forced to remove their facial hair? How can staff with facial hair be protected from COVID-19? These issues present legal and ethical dilemmas for employers and employees alike regarding the provision and use of respiratory and personal protective equipment under health and safety considerations. This is a law review examining various UK statutory instruments and case law surrounding the use of facial hair and the use of respiratory protection. Facial hair is a hazard when considering respiratory protective equipment provision and use. Unless there is an absolute need requiring the removal of facial hair for any reason, individuals have the right to grow facial hair as they see fit. It is arguable though what an “absolute need†may be, as numerous proportional and reasonable adjustments can be made to accommodate facial hair that can mitigate the risks associated with respiratory diseases. Keywords: facial hair; risk; respiratory protective equipment; COVID-19; informed choice (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:4:p:21582440211060668 DOI: 10.1177/21582440211060668 Access Statistics for this article More articles in SAGE Open |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.