Judicialization of the right to health in the field of neoplasms: decisions of the Court of Justice of the State of Rio Grande do Sul
Objective: to know how the Court of Justice of the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, positions itself from January 2019 to March 2020 in relation to the right to health, specifically about neoplasms. Methods: this is an empirical study with a quantitative and qualitative approach that examines the...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
| Repositorio: | Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br:article/744 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/744 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Direito à Saúde Judicialização da Saúde Neoplasias Decisões Judiciais Poder Judiciário `Judicialização da Saúde Right to Health Health's Judicialization Neoplasms Judicial Decisions Judiciary Derecho a la Salud Judicialización de la Salud Decisiones Judiciales Poder Judicial |
| Sumario: | Objective: to know how the Court of Justice of the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, positions itself from January 2019 to March 2020 in relation to the right to health, specifically about neoplasms. Methods: this is an empirical study with a quantitative and qualitative approach that examines the jurisprudence in the form of a compilation. The data were extracted, systematized, and analyzed, using as selection criteria the saturation of the data and the sufficiency of the theoretical arguments in relation to the objective of this study. Results: 344 cases decided in second instance were analyzed. In the quantitative analysis, it was found that most of the cases came from the Porto Alegre Court and were decided by judgment, with a low percentage of reform of first instance decisions. In the qualitative analysis, it was possible to divide the content into four topics: access to medicines for the treatment of neoplasms; access to high-complexity assistance units and high-complexity assistance centers in oncology; coverage of health plans and interventions for neoplasms; and exemption from income tax and social security contributions for people with cancer. Conclusion: as much as one may debate the prejudice of judicialization in the public policy cycle, the specifics of some neoplasms make judicialization more than necessary and effective because lives may depend on it. Received: 11/13/20 | Accepted: 01/29/22 |
|---|