Dimensões da judicialização da saúde no estado democrático de direito: características, ativismo e uniformização
Tipo
TCC
Data de publicação
2020-06
Periódico
Citações (Scopus)
Autores
Ruppini, Daniely Moraes
Orientador
Costa, Cláudia Márcia
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
A Constituição de 1988 inaugurou o paradigma do Estado Democrático de Direito no Brasil, trazendo com si uma nova percepção dos deveres inerentes à organização jurídica e política da sociedade na concretização dos direitos fundamentais. Como reflexo da dignidade humana, a arquitetura constitucional brasileira deu grande substrato ao direito à saúde. Entretanto, o déficit factual entre as previsões normativas e a implementação das políticas públicas de saúde inferiu na necessidade de o cidadão exigir acesso às prestações de saúde a partir de uma tutela jurisdicional. A concessão dessa tutela judicial, por sua vez, reputa no reconhecimento de situações onde a própria legitimidade democrática das decisões judiciais é questionada, notadamente com as implicações financeiras nos orçamentos públicos. As repercussões orçamentárias da tutela jurisdicional na satisfação do direito à saúde resultaram em movimentos legiferantes do Poder Executivo e Legislativo na busca de incorporar e ampliar o acesso a medicamentos e tratamentos no âmbito do SUS, além de estabelecer parâmetros excepcionais para os atendimentos em matéria de saúde, intensificando a preocupação com a incorporação eficiente de novos medicamentos, tratamentos e produtos de interesse à saúde nas políticas públicas. Por sua vez, o próprio Poder Judiciário acenou preocupação com a judicialização da saúde, implementando alterações em sua organização administrativa para garantir maior subsídio à tomada de decisões informadas pelos magistrados, bem como promoveu a uniformização de sua jurisprudência em matéria de judicialização da saúde. Esses critérios e condições de decisibilidade foram recebidos na atividade legislativa emergencial decorrente do surto pandêmico do novo Coronavírus e, aparentemente, influenciaram uma autocontenção por parte dos magistrados ao lidar com a judicialização de questões no âmbito da pandemia de COVID-19.
Brazil’s 1988 Constitution installed the Democratic State of Law as a paradigm, along with a new perception of the duties inherent to the legal and political organization of society in the realization of fundamental rights. As a reflection of human dignity, the Brazilian constitutional architecture established a deep foundation to the right to healthcare. However, the factual deficit between the normative proposition and the implementation of public healthcare policies has inferred a need for the citizen to demand access to healthcare services through jurisdictional protection. The granting of this judicial protection, in turn, perceives the recognition of situations where the very democratic legitimacy of judicial decisions is questioned, notably with the financial implications for public budgets. The budgetary repercussions of jurisdictional protection on the satisfaction of the right to healthcare resulted in legal movements by the Executive and Legislative branches searching to incorporate and expand access to medicines and treatments within the scope of Brazil’s Unique Healthcare System (SUS), in addition to establishing exceptional parameters for covering the needs of healthcare, intensifying the concern with the efficient incorporation of new drugs, treatments and healthcare interest products in public policies. In turn, the Judiciary branch itself raised concerns about the judicialization of healthcare, implementing changes in its administrative organization to ensure greater support for judges’ informed decision-making, as well as promoting the uniformity of its jurisprudence in matters of healthcare judicialization. These criteria and decision-making conditions were received in the emergency legislative activity resulting from the pandemic outbreak of the new Coronavirus and, apparently, influenced a self-restraint by the magistrates when dealing with the judicialization of issues within the scope of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Brazil’s 1988 Constitution installed the Democratic State of Law as a paradigm, along with a new perception of the duties inherent to the legal and political organization of society in the realization of fundamental rights. As a reflection of human dignity, the Brazilian constitutional architecture established a deep foundation to the right to healthcare. However, the factual deficit between the normative proposition and the implementation of public healthcare policies has inferred a need for the citizen to demand access to healthcare services through jurisdictional protection. The granting of this judicial protection, in turn, perceives the recognition of situations where the very democratic legitimacy of judicial decisions is questioned, notably with the financial implications for public budgets. The budgetary repercussions of jurisdictional protection on the satisfaction of the right to healthcare resulted in legal movements by the Executive and Legislative branches searching to incorporate and expand access to medicines and treatments within the scope of Brazil’s Unique Healthcare System (SUS), in addition to establishing exceptional parameters for covering the needs of healthcare, intensifying the concern with the efficient incorporation of new drugs, treatments and healthcare interest products in public policies. In turn, the Judiciary branch itself raised concerns about the judicialization of healthcare, implementing changes in its administrative organization to ensure greater support for judges’ informed decision-making, as well as promoting the uniformity of its jurisprudence in matters of healthcare judicialization. These criteria and decision-making conditions were received in the emergency legislative activity resulting from the pandemic outbreak of the new Coronavirus and, apparently, influenced a self-restraint by the magistrates when dealing with the judicialization of issues within the scope of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
judicialização , saúde pública , judiciário , coronavírus , SUS , judicialization , public healthcare , judiciary