Maquette University, US.
Medical College of Wisconsin, US.
Ann Glob Health. 2020 Feb 7;86(1):14. doi: 10.5334/aogh.2760.
Some scholars and global health advocates argue that litigation is a strategy to advance public health care, especially in those countries that do not have specific legislation to guarantee access to basic health care services. However, strategic litigation has another side, known as judicialization of the right to health, particularly present in the Latin American region where most countries incorporate the right to health into their constitutions, but their citizens still struggle with health disparities.
Considering these two perspectives on litigation in health care, this paper examines the phenomenon of litigation in health care and its impact on public health in Brazil, where there is an ambiguous process of litigation in health care.
Comparing the literature of both the use of strategic litigation for advancing public health and the judicialization of the right to health, this paper develops an ethical analysis of the impacts of strategic litigation for individuals and societies, using Brazil's public health care system and its policies as case-study of the impact of court decisions on the management of the system.
Supporters of strategic litigation present experiences in African countries using this strategy to access a specific medical service led to enforce the creation of health-related policies by authorities and policymakers. However, in Brazil, a country with the right to health guaranteed by its Constitution, strategic litigation creates access to health care for some individuals, but also results in complex sociomedical challenges with significant impact for public administration and distributive justice.
Strategic litigation can lead to ambiguous results, which will depend on the local context and the existence or not of public health services and health-related policies. When this strategy is considered, ethical analysis helps to understand how litigation can both benefit and damage individuals' health and the public health system in the complex context and diverse reality of Brazil. As a result, strategic litigation must be considered from an ethical perspective of prudence and discernment in a close interaction with the local reality, its particular circumstances, culture, policies, and laws.
一些学者和全球卫生倡导者认为,诉讼是推进公共医疗保健的一种策略,尤其是在那些没有特定立法来保障基本医疗服务可及性的国家。然而,诉讼策略还有另一面,即健康权的司法化,这在拉丁美洲地区尤为明显,大多数国家将健康权纳入宪法,但公民仍然面临健康差距问题。
考虑到医疗保健诉讼的这两个方面,本文研究了巴西医疗保健诉讼现象及其对公共卫生的影响,巴西的医疗保健诉讼存在一个模糊的过程。
本文通过比较战略性诉讼在促进公共卫生方面的应用和健康权的司法化的文献,对个体和社会的战略性诉讼的影响进行伦理分析,使用巴西的公共医疗保健系统及其政策作为法院判决对系统管理的影响的案例研究。
支持战略性诉讼的人介绍了一些非洲国家利用这一策略获取特定医疗服务的经验,这导致当局和政策制定者制定了与健康相关的政策。然而,在巴西,宪法保障了健康权,战略性诉讼为一些人提供了获得医疗保健的机会,但也为公共行政和分配正义带来了复杂的社会医学挑战。
战略性诉讼可能会产生模棱两可的结果,这将取决于当地的具体情况以及是否存在公共卫生服务和与健康相关的政策。当考虑这种策略时,伦理分析有助于理解诉讼如何既能造福于个人的健康,又能损害公共卫生系统,这需要在巴西复杂多样的现实背景下进行谨慎和有洞察力的考虑。因此,战略性诉讼必须从谨慎和辨别伦理角度进行考虑,并与当地现实、具体情况、文化、政策和法律密切互动。