FERNANDES, J. B.; FERNANDES, Jeyson Barreto.
Résumé:
Health as assumption of the principle of human dignity must be provided efficiently and
equitably throughout the population. This was the premise enshrined in the Constitution of
1988, imposing therefore the duty of the government to develop public health policies. It turns
out that the obligation of the State is not being performed adequately, since often courts have
been faced with the necessity of realizing this right. Therefore, this paper proposes to examine
the fundamental character of the right to health and their implementation by the judiciary,
from the definition of the legal and financial state by the theory of reserve for contingencies,
which has been used by the public as ground to prevent exercise jurisdiction on the demands
associated with public health. Also, examine the state duty to perform satisfactorily, positive
behaviors that can offer citizens a minimum existential health analyzing therefore formalities
intrinsic to the media request court proved this right when the restriction of this fundamental
guarantee, and also examine the limits and prerogatives that the judiciary has to judge the
actions linked to health. For this, we used the deductive method of approach, since the study
was based on a broader, such as research the origin of fundamental rights and core analysis of
the general principles governing the matter in order to establish jurisdictional solutions to
concrete cases involving the right to health. As a method of procedure was used exegetical
and legal, from the investigation of the fundamental right to health, considering the legal
limits of its application. In turn, we used the literature with analysis of the legislation, doctrine
and jurisprudence related to the topic. Thus, considering the fundamental aspect principle that
the right to health holds, combining that this assumption is unfolding right to life itself, along
with the inertia of the state in the provision of decent health policies with the current reality, it
is noticed the most feasible and fair is the ability of the judiciary to intervene in the
implementation of public health, analyzing the specific case and taking reasonable steps and
reasonable for the citizen who is helpless can get
plausible solution with the jurisdiction.