John Rawls' theory and the fairness of Supreme Federal Court decisions in high-cost drug claims

• Autor(a) principal: Morais, Luis Augusto Teixeira
• Data de Publicação: 2021
• Outros Autores: Oliveira, Cristina Godoy Bernardo de
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Revista Quaestio Iuris (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/quaestioiuris/article/view/63005
• topic: Health Law. Judicial Decisions. John Rawls. Federal Supreme Court. Theory of Justice

Based on the Theory of Justice of John Rawls, this article analyses justice regarding the decisions of the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil (STF) related to public concessions of expensive medicines. This study focuses on constitutional principles like the universality and integrality in health care illuminated by the minimum existential and the reserve for contingencies. The study of the decisions of the Federal Supreme Court searched an equity approach and the consequences for the poor that depends on the public health system (SUS) to receive health care. Applying the analytical and synthetic methods, the analyses showed that the decisions are not fair in the same way John Rawls argues that because there is no protection of the minimum existential. Thus, there is a health injury to the poor that could be avoided by the theory of justice of John Rawls.