The breach of paradigms of the supreme federal court in the right to health and the absence of theoretical consistency A quebra de paradigmas do supremo tribunal federal em direito à saúde e a ausência da consistência teórica

Data de publicação
Revista Juridica
Citações (Scopus)
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
© 2020, Centro Universitário Curitiba - UNICURITIBA. All rights reserved.Objective: The study aims to analyze the decisions of the Supreme Federal Court, with the purpose of identifying judgments handed down from 2010 to 2013, and to verify whether new concepts about the right to health have been incorporated into its jurisprudence. Methodology: The methodology used is bibliographic research, through the analysis of jurisprudential decisions of the Federal Supreme Court, limited to the period from 2010 to 2013. Results: The reading of the judgments shows how directly or indirectly they are based on the absence of parameters. It is also possible to talk about new parameters and not in the absence of criteria. The absence of criteria is preferred due to the understanding that previous rigid starting points have shaped judicial action for decades and its withdrawal has weakened the legal argument, to the point of not discussing relevant issues. Judgments offer hope as a source of healing. A very distant language of medical science and without any criterion for the management of public money was established in the Court's new judgments. The lack of legal consistency is also evidenced by the complete lack of concern in facing the legal arguments offered by the politics. Everything is so in line with the new concepts that there is no reason to argue or face the legal theses of the Public Administration. This is the new jurisdictional paradigm in the right to health. Contributions: The central contribution of the present paper is the analysis of the Supreme Court decisions in order to identify the treatment given to issues of right to health.
Assuntos Scopus