O controle judicial das políticas públicas de saúde terapêutica à luz dos tribunais superiores

Abstract

This is a Master´s Degree Dissertation that examines how neoconstitutionalism and post-positivism serve as theoretical frameworks in the grounds of judicial review of public policies related to health treatment. It is noteworthy, too, the normative force of the Constitution and the principle of human dignity as an argument in the realization of social rights. Citing case law and reference to different doctrinal positions, this study further explores how the programmatic standards may provide legal support for the realization of fundamental social rights of individual or collective nature, allowing it to recognize any omissions state that deviate from commitments constitutional assumed by Constituent Power Sourced. It also analyzes the main arguments presented by the Treasury in this kind of control: the violation of the principle of separation of powers and the reserve as possible. In light of the precedents of the Superior Courts, will be presented the understanding that, in the case of health services directed to ensure life, judicial control of public policy is different, and the reserve can only be an obstacle when the situation pled escape of proportionality, which should not be confused with the issue of resources to be spent and its scarcity. Finally, we will argue that judicial review may interfere with the pursuit of an efficient budget planning towards the achievement of public policies for the realization of the Health.