The role of the Public Defender’s Office in guaranteeing the right to access healthcare: An integrative review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48017/dj.v10i1.3140Keywords:
Public Defender's Office, Judicialization, Access to healthcareAbstract
The Federal Constitution of 1988 ensures the constitutional guarantee of access to justice, full and free legal assistance, in addition to allocating the Public Defender's Office as a permanent institution, essential to the State's jurisdictional function. Thus, the present work aims to carry out an integrative review of the literature that deals with the role of the public defender's office in guaranteeing the right of access to health, highlighting its constitutional role and mission, closely linked to the evolution of the fundamental right of access to a fair legal order, an instrument for the realization of the existential minimum. This is an exploratory research, with data collection carried out from 11 selected articles, through bibliographic research and also adopting a qualitative approach, substantiated by empirical research. The present study is based on the premise that the role of the Public Defender's Office in the judicialization of access to health can be used as an instrument for structuring the Unified Health System (SUS), especially in relation to the correction of failures and injustices for access to health by low-income citizens of Alagoas. In this context, the judicialization of health presents itself to citizens as a legitimate and democratic alternative for the realization of fundamental rights and access to health. As well as the institution's challenges in formulating political and social strategies orchestrated with other mechanisms and instruments of democratic guarantee, which improve the health and justice systems with a view to the effectiveness of the right to health. It is concluded that the performance of the Public Defender's Office indicates that the judicialization of health can be used as an instrument for structuring the Unified Health System (SUS), especially in relation to the correction of failures and injustices for access to health by citizens of the popular classes.
Metrics
References
Barroso, L. R. (2009). Da falta de efetividade à judicialização excessiva: direito à saúde, fornecimento gratuito de medicamentos e parâmetros para a atuação judicial. Jurisp. Mineira, 60(188), 29-60.
Biehl, J. (2016). Patient-Citizen-Consumers: judicialization of health and metamorphosis of biopolitics. Lua Nova, (98), 77-105.
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia Estatística (IBGE). (1998). Pesquisa Nacional por amostras de Domicílios 1998. Rio de Janeiro.
Lima, F. M., & Sant’Ana, M. M. (2016). A Defensoria Pública como instrumento garantidor do acesso à justiça, inclusive às pessoas sem moradia. Rev. Cidadania e Acesso à Justiça, 1(2), 1066-1084.
Sant’Ana, R. N. (2011). A relevante atuação da Defensoria Pública no desenvolvimento do SUS. In Conselho Nacional de Secretários de Saúde (CONASS), Assistência Farmacêutica no SUS (Série: “Para Entender a Gestão do SUS”, livro 7, capítulo 6). Brasília: CONASS.
Sant’Ana, R. N. (2013). O relevante papel da Defensoria Pública na garantia do direito à saúde e na construção do SUS. Cad. IberAmer. Direito. Sanit., 8(3), 440.
Sant’Ana, R. N. (2018). Atuação da Defensoria Pública para a garantia do direito à saúde: a judicialização como instrumento de acesso à saúde. Rev. Bras. Polít. Públicas, 8(3), 194-211.
Silva, E. A., Comaru, F. A., & Silva, S. J. (2018). Direito à moradia e judicialização: atuação da Defensoria Pública Paulista. Estud. Sociol. Araraquara, 23(45), 81-98.
Souza Neto, C. P., & Sarmento, D. (2013). Notas sobre jurisdição constitucional e democracia: a questão da “última palavra” e alguns parâmetros de autocontenção judicial. Quaestio Iuris, 6(2), 119-161.
Souza, M. T., Silva, M. D., & Carvalho, R. (2010). Revisão integrativa: o que é e como fazer. Einstein [Internet], 8(1 Pt 1), 102-106. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/eins/v8n1/pt_1679-4508-eins-8-1-0102.
Ursi, E. S., & Gavão, C. M. (2006). Prevenção de lesões de pele no perioperatório: revisão integrativa da literatura. Rev Latino Am Enfermagem, 14(1), 124-131. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692006000100017.
Ventura, M., Simas, L., Pepe, V. L. E., & Schramm, F. R. (2010). Judicialização da saúde, acesso à justiça e a efetividade do direito à saúde. Revista de Saúde Coletiva, 20(1), 77-100.
Vieira, F. S., & Zucchi, P. (2007). Distorções causadas pelas ações judiciais à política de medicamentos no Brasil. Rev. Saúde Pública, 41(2), 214-222.
Espero que isso ajude! Se precisar de mais alguma coisa, estou à disposição.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Clarissa Cavalcante, Ana Lydia de Albuquerque Peixoto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Diversitas Journal expresses that the articles are the sole responsibility of the Authors, who are familiar with Brazilian and international legislation.
Articles are peer-reviewed and care should be taken to warn of the possible incidence of plagiarism. However, plagiarism is an indisputable action by the authors.
The violation of copyright is a crime, provided for in article 184 of the Brazilian Penal Code: “Art. 184 Violating copyright and related rights: Penalty - detention, from 3 (three) months to 1 (one) year, or fine. § 1 If the violation consists of total or partial reproduction, for the purpose of direct or indirect profit, by any means or process, of intellectual work, interpretation, performance or phonogram, without the express authorization of the author, the performer, the producer , as the case may be, or whoever represents them: Penalty - imprisonment, from 2 (two) to 4 (four) years, and a fine. ”
