Detalhes bibliográficos
Ano de defesa: |
2010 |
Autor(a) principal: |
Tessler, Marga Inge Barth |
Orientador(a): |
Gonçalves, Guilherme Leite |
Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
Idioma: |
por |
Instituição de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Departamento: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
País: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
Link de acesso: |
https://hdl.handle.net/10438/8568
|
Resumo: |
This study reflects a personal preocupation about effectivity of jurisdiction regarding the fundamental right to health and the dilemas profered to the judge obliged to decide about issues that go beyond the juridical matter. The Federal Constitution has established it is everybodies right and a duty of the State, made available by the State, through public policies. The access to the service is universal and free, with the SUS (Public Health System) constituting the only backing or support to the majority of the population in case of illness. The reality of the services offered is far from the constitutional formulations. There are some aspects for which the service is exemplary and internationaly praised, such as the public policy of medication for bearers of AIDS. The Judiciary grants medicines not available through the public service, causing a strong impact on the budgets, creating tension points with the public managers. The Judiciary is then seen as an element of disruption, while the number of judiciary actions grows continously. In order to contribute to the comprehension of the problem, with no pretention of exhausting it, the study summarizes the history of public health services throughout its course in the Brazilian constitutions. It approaches the structural principles of the SUS. The public policies in matters of medication, its formulators and beneficiaries. It examines judicial decisions, fundamentation and criteria used. To end, it identifies an innovative initiative of the STF (Supreme Federal Court) with the summons to the Public Hearing number 4 and the consequences and results obtained. |