O direito à saúde e sua “curiosa” efetividade em Terrae Brasilis: do desafio da realização da boa governança à excessiva judicialização

Abstract

This thesis aimed at examining the effectiveness of the right to health in Brazil, starting with the search for good governance to the investigation about the excessive judicialization of social law. Within this proposal, argued that the meaning of good governance as a true fundamental right (of the 4th dimension), and there should be realignment between law and ethics. Considering the fact that the right to health is one of the most demanded social right in court and require greater expenditure of public budget, one should work towards a responsible and transparent management, through good governance so as to facilitate a proper flow of public social policies. Under another point of view, the object of this research was an analysis of how incontinence with public spending, especially corruption, may constitute a transaction cost, a factor of obstruction of social rights. In this sense, it is stated that the principles of efficiency and effectiveness of fundamental rights do depend on an honest administrative management which is linked to the principles of good governance so as to minimize the scarcity of financial resources. After this first phase of work, we did discuss the response modes offered by court judges to the effectiveness of the right to health. Given the increasing judicialization of the right to health, the effects of judicial decisions should be investigated, and the present work sought to offer the possible ways for an intermediate and hermeneutic situated between the mere programmatic standards that deal with the right to health (which would imply a total emptying of the norm) and the abusiveness of requests (which are routinely granted) in court. Therefore, the thesis criticizes the technique of balancing of interests, which is a corollary of Alexy’s Theory of Legal Argumentation used in courts, because it reveals itself as bluntly undemocratic, especially when the discussion involves the right to health, which cannot depend on "legal discretion." The approach claimed by this thesis, travels through the understanding that, the right to health is a fundamental right to receive the same response from the state-court judge granted to others who previously sued the Judiciary in the same situation. For us, the search for the correct answer constitutionally finds its theoretical reference through philosophical hermeneutics seeking to overcoming the interpretative subjectivism, as well as the scope of pre-understanding as a horizon of meaning (Dworkin and Lenio Streck). We conclude by stating that the aim of the thesis was to seek a pact about a so-called Theory of Decision-Making ie. the uniformity of reasoning logical to allow the Judiciary to have the tools to optimize already scarce resources, without further increasing such shortage once in confronting the issue of the right to health the responses produced by the law must take into account not only the possible beneficiaries of the decision, but also the ones that may be negatively affected by it. Otherwise, the right to health, constitutionally protected, would be reduced to a time-related criterion of interpositione litis primum.