Parâmetros de concretização judicial do direito fundamental à saúde no fornecimento de medicamentos

In Brazil, social rights have always been considered secondary legal categories, whose implementation could wait for the pending of political decisions. At the end of the Second World War, International Law emphasizes the protection of human beings, raising his dignity as a legal pillar of the legal orders and one of the main foundations of Constitutions. At the post-positivism Constitutionalism, the realization of social rights receives special attention with the assumption of supremacy and normativity of the Constitutions, while the judiciary participates in the realization of democracy, not only as applicator of laws, but also as the guardian of constitutionality of the acts and administrative omissions, creatively contributing to the constitutional achievement, filling gaps and normative state omissions. In this aspect, the supply of medicines, whose costs can not be supported by the individual, keep a close connection with the right to life, health and dignity of the human being, as the subject of numerous lawsuits directed against the Public Administration. Such phenomenon has caused intense debate regarding judicial activism and legitimacy of these decisions, particularly on the need to define what are the limits and possibilities considering the principle of separation of powers and the principle of reserve of the possible; bieng this the problematic developed in this research. Thus, this research aims to verify the legitimacy of judicial decisions that determines to the Public Administration the compulsory providing of medicine to those who can not afford the cost of their treatment, as well as, contribute to the dogmatic constructions of parameters to be observed by judicial interference. Regarding the methodology, this research has an investigative and descriptive caracter and an theoretical approach based on bibliographical data collection (judicial and doutrine decisions) that received qualitative treatment and dialectical approach. As a result, it is known that the judicial decision that determines the supply of medicines to those individuals who can not afford them with their own resources is legitimate and complies with the democratic principle, not violating the principle of separation of powers and the reserve of the possible, since the judicial decison is not stripped with an uniform and reasonable criteria, failing to contain high burden of subjectivism and witch signifies a possible exacerbation of functions by the judiciary, suffering, in this case, of requirement of legal certainty. It is concluded that the Court decision that determines the government the providing of medicine to those who can not afford the cost of treatment should be based on parameters such as: the protection of human dignity and the minimum existencial principle, the inafastable jurisdiction principle; compliance critique of the possible reserve principle; subsidiarity of judicial intervention; proportionality (quantitative and qualitative) in the content of the decision; the questioning about the reasons for non-delivery of the drug through administrative via; and, finally, the attention not to turn the judiciary into a mere production factor of the pharmaceutical industry, contributing to the cartelization of the right to health