A judicialização da saúde pública no município de Marabá - PA

Abstract

The fundamental right to health is rated as a right of the second dimension. However, it is a subjective public law that allows the individual to take their claims to the courts when the executive or legislative branch remain inert in doing what they can. It integrates the list of rights that make up the existential minimum, without which one can’t speak of human dignity, given there is no dignified life without health. So, given the numerous omissions of the executive branch to implement the right to health, it is the judiciary to intervene in order to remedy this omission unconstitutional; because social rights are self-administered and the judiciary, as a defender of democratic constitutional rule of law, must act to ensure that the constitutional provisions do not deflate. Thus, there is the legalization of public health, which is a phenomenon whereby the Judiciary intervenes to determine the implementation of public health policies. But for the legalization happens, the judiciary should take an activist stance. Therefore, legalization and activism go hand in hand. This time, currently the judiciary is sought to protect the right to health, is of a collective nature or individual bias. The scope of this work was to study this subject in reality the city of Maraba-PA, to identify the legal arguments of marabaenses magistrates and confront them with the arguments espoused by the State of Pará Court and the high courts. Thus, we studied several bibliographies area and analyzed judgments of the State of Pará Court of Justice case law and the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice. Furthermore, field surveys were conducted with the Attorney General, the Ombudsman and the Third Civil Court of Maraba-PA County. Anyway, it was found that the arguments used by marabaenses judges in their decisions are in line with the arguments accepted by the State of Pará Court and the high courts.