The judicialization of health: the Supreme Court decisions versus the Principle of Check and Balances
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/295 |
Resumo: | Introduction: The Federal Constitution of de 1988, to qualify the health as a fundamental right, of universal and equal access, and responsibility of the State, and to establish the participation of the judiciary power in the face of threat or injury the rights, emerged the so-called legalization of health: the interference that power on primarily issues be the responsibility of the executive and legislative powers. The article aimed to identify the position of the Supreme Court (STF) and the interference of the judiciary on the separation of powers principle. Methodology: This was qualitative-quantitative research, descriptive and analytical character, of judgments delivered by the Supreme Court, from June 2009 to June 2015, in appeal, the lawsuits about health actions or health services. Results and discussion: The analysis of decisions show: increased health demands brought to the Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015; predominance of pharmaceutical inputs and assistance demands; trend of the State claimed as appeal reasons the violation of separation of powers and serious injury to the public order; the pacified the understanding of the Supreme Court as the matter. Results and discussion: The analysis of decisions show: increased health demands brought to the Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015; predominance of pharmaceutical inputs and assistance demands; trend of the State claimed as appeal reasons the violation of separation of powers and serious injury to the public order; the pacified the understanding of the Supreme Court as the matter. Conclusion: For the STF, the intervention of the judiciary in public health policy does not violate the principle of separation of powers, does not cause too damage to public order, because the guarantee and realization of the right to health is the State's responsibility, not being allowed, within the constitutional framework adopted, any of the powers disclaim such obligation. |
id |
FIOCRUZ-3_a161f926f1afb5908882255f5f796ef0 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br:article/295 |
network_acronym_str |
FIOCRUZ-3 |
network_name_str |
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
The judicialization of health: the Supreme Court decisions versus the Principle of Check and BalancesLa judicialización de la salud: las decisiones de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en contra del Principio de la Separación de los PoderesA judicialização da saúde: as decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal frente ao princípio da separação dos poderesJudicializaçãoSaúdeDireitoSeparaçãoPoderes.LegalizationHealthLawSeparationPowersLegalizaciónSaludDerechoSeparaciónPowersIntroduction: The Federal Constitution of de 1988, to qualify the health as a fundamental right, of universal and equal access, and responsibility of the State, and to establish the participation of the judiciary power in the face of threat or injury the rights, emerged the so-called legalization of health: the interference that power on primarily issues be the responsibility of the executive and legislative powers. The article aimed to identify the position of the Supreme Court (STF) and the interference of the judiciary on the separation of powers principle. Methodology: This was qualitative-quantitative research, descriptive and analytical character, of judgments delivered by the Supreme Court, from June 2009 to June 2015, in appeal, the lawsuits about health actions or health services. Results and discussion: The analysis of decisions show: increased health demands brought to the Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015; predominance of pharmaceutical inputs and assistance demands; trend of the State claimed as appeal reasons the violation of separation of powers and serious injury to the public order; the pacified the understanding of the Supreme Court as the matter. Results and discussion: The analysis of decisions show: increased health demands brought to the Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015; predominance of pharmaceutical inputs and assistance demands; trend of the State claimed as appeal reasons the violation of separation of powers and serious injury to the public order; the pacified the understanding of the Supreme Court as the matter. Conclusion: For the STF, the intervention of the judiciary in public health policy does not violate the principle of separation of powers, does not cause too damage to public order, because the guarantee and realization of the right to health is the State's responsibility, not being allowed, within the constitutional framework adopted, any of the powers disclaim such obligation.Introducción: La Constitución Federal de 1988, para calificar la salud como un derecho fundamental de acceso universal e igual, y el deber del Estado, y para establecer la participación del poder judicial frente a la amenaza o lesión o los derechos ha dado lugar a la llamada legalización de salud: la interferencia que el poder sea en temas principalmente responsabilidad de los poderes ejecutivo y legislativo. El artículo tiene como objetivo identificar la posición de la Corte Suprema (STF) y la interferencia del poder judicial en el principio de separación de poderes. Metodología: Se realizó una investigación cualitativa-cuantitativa, de carácter descriptivo y analítico de las sentencias dictadas por el Tribunal Supremo de junio 2009 hasta junio 2015 en las acciones de la sede de recurso cuyos objetos fueron declarado acerca de acciones o servicios de salud. Resultados y discusión: El análisis de las decisiones Mostrar: aumento de las demandas de salud llevados a la Corte Suprema en 2014 y 2015; predominio de las demandas de insumos farmacéuticos y asistencia; Estado de la tendencia reivindica como una característica de las razones por violación de la separación de poderes y el daño grave al orden público; pacificado la comprensión de la Corte Suprema como la materia. Conclusión: Para la intervención STF del poder judicial en la política de salud pública no viola el principio de separación de poderes, o resulta dañado por el orden público, ya que la garantía y el ejercicio del derecho a la salud es responsabilidad del Estado, cualquiera que sea la pelota y el ámbito de sus funciones, siendo inadmisible, dentro del marco constitucional aprobada, ninguno de los poderes renuncia a dicha obligación.Resumo: Introdução: A Constituição Federal de 1988, ao qualificar a saúde como um direito fundamental, de acesso universal e igualitário, e dever do Estado, e ao estabelecer a participação do poder judiciário diante de ameaça ou lesão ou aos direitos fez surgir a chamada judicialização da saúde: a interferência desse poder em questões que, primariamente, seriam da competência dos poderes executivos e legislativos. O artigo objetivou identificar o posicionamento do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) quanto à interferência do Judiciário diante do princípio da separação dos poderes. Metodologia: Tratou-se de pesquisa qualiquantitativa, de caráter descritivo e analítico, das decisões judiciais proferidas pelo STF, de junho de 2009 a junho de 2015, em sede recursal, de ações cujos objetos pleiteados versavam sobre ações ou serviços de saúde. Resultados e discussão: A análise das decisões demonstra: aumento das demandas de saúde levadas à Suprema Corte em 2014 e 2015; predominância de demandas de assistência farmacêutica e insumos; tendência do Estado de alegar como razões do recurso a violação da separação dos poderes e grave lesão à ordem pública; o entendimento pacificado do STF quanto à matéria. Conclusão: Para o STF a intervenção do Judiciário nas políticas públicas de saúde não fere o princípio da separação dos poderes, nem gera lesão à ordem pública, pois a garantia e efetivação do direito à saúde é responsabilidade do Estado, seja qual for a esfera e a abrangência de suas funções, sendo inadmissível, dentro do modelo constitucional adotado, qualquer dos poderes eximir-se dessa obrigação.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Brasília2017-03-30info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/29510.17566/ciads.v6i1.295Iberoamerican Journal of Health Law; Vol. 6 No. 1 (2017): (JAN/MAR. 2017); 139-152Cuadernos Iberoamericanos de Derecho Sanitario; Vol. 6 Núm. 1 (2017): (JAN/MAR. 2017); 139-152Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário; v. 6 n. 1 (2017): (JAN/MAR. 2017); 139-1522358-18242317-839610.17566/ciads.v6i1reponame:Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online)instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)instacron:FIOCRUZporhttps://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/295/437Copyright (c) 2017 CADERNOS IBERO-AMERICANOS DE DIREITO SANITÁRIOinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCosta, Tábata da Silva2020-03-24T21:15:34Zoai:ojs.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br:article/295Revistahttp://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.brPUBhttp://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/oaicadernos.direitosanitario@fiocruz.br2358-18242317-8396opendoar:2020-03-24T21:15:34Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The judicialization of health: the Supreme Court decisions versus the Principle of Check and Balances La judicialización de la salud: las decisiones de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en contra del Principio de la Separación de los Poderes A judicialização da saúde: as decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal frente ao princípio da separação dos poderes |
title |
The judicialization of health: the Supreme Court decisions versus the Principle of Check and Balances |
spellingShingle |
The judicialization of health: the Supreme Court decisions versus the Principle of Check and Balances Costa, Tábata da Silva Judicialização Saúde Direito Separação Poderes. Legalization Health Law Separation Powers Legalización Salud Derecho Separación Powers |
title_short |
The judicialization of health: the Supreme Court decisions versus the Principle of Check and Balances |
title_full |
The judicialization of health: the Supreme Court decisions versus the Principle of Check and Balances |
title_fullStr |
The judicialization of health: the Supreme Court decisions versus the Principle of Check and Balances |
title_full_unstemmed |
The judicialization of health: the Supreme Court decisions versus the Principle of Check and Balances |
title_sort |
The judicialization of health: the Supreme Court decisions versus the Principle of Check and Balances |
author |
Costa, Tábata da Silva |
author_facet |
Costa, Tábata da Silva |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Costa, Tábata da Silva |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Judicialização Saúde Direito Separação Poderes. Legalization Health Law Separation Powers Legalización Salud Derecho Separación Powers |
topic |
Judicialização Saúde Direito Separação Poderes. Legalization Health Law Separation Powers Legalización Salud Derecho Separación Powers |
description |
Introduction: The Federal Constitution of de 1988, to qualify the health as a fundamental right, of universal and equal access, and responsibility of the State, and to establish the participation of the judiciary power in the face of threat or injury the rights, emerged the so-called legalization of health: the interference that power on primarily issues be the responsibility of the executive and legislative powers. The article aimed to identify the position of the Supreme Court (STF) and the interference of the judiciary on the separation of powers principle. Methodology: This was qualitative-quantitative research, descriptive and analytical character, of judgments delivered by the Supreme Court, from June 2009 to June 2015, in appeal, the lawsuits about health actions or health services. Results and discussion: The analysis of decisions show: increased health demands brought to the Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015; predominance of pharmaceutical inputs and assistance demands; trend of the State claimed as appeal reasons the violation of separation of powers and serious injury to the public order; the pacified the understanding of the Supreme Court as the matter. Results and discussion: The analysis of decisions show: increased health demands brought to the Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015; predominance of pharmaceutical inputs and assistance demands; trend of the State claimed as appeal reasons the violation of separation of powers and serious injury to the public order; the pacified the understanding of the Supreme Court as the matter. Conclusion: For the STF, the intervention of the judiciary in public health policy does not violate the principle of separation of powers, does not cause too damage to public order, because the guarantee and realization of the right to health is the State's responsibility, not being allowed, within the constitutional framework adopted, any of the powers disclaim such obligation. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017-03-30 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/295 10.17566/ciads.v6i1.295 |
url |
https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/295 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.17566/ciads.v6i1.295 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/295/437 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 CADERNOS IBERO-AMERICANOS DE DIREITO SANITÁRIO info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 CADERNOS IBERO-AMERICANOS DE DIREITO SANITÁRIO |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Brasília |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Brasília |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Iberoamerican Journal of Health Law; Vol. 6 No. 1 (2017): (JAN/MAR. 2017); 139-152 Cuadernos Iberoamericanos de Derecho Sanitario; Vol. 6 Núm. 1 (2017): (JAN/MAR. 2017); 139-152 Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário; v. 6 n. 1 (2017): (JAN/MAR. 2017); 139-152 2358-1824 2317-8396 10.17566/ciads.v6i1 reponame:Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) instacron:FIOCRUZ |
instname_str |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
instacron_str |
FIOCRUZ |
institution |
FIOCRUZ |
reponame_str |
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
collection |
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
cadernos.direitosanitario@fiocruz.br |
_version_ |
1798942494011949056 |