RESUMO
The authors would like to correct the name of the third author in this paper to Julian Urrutia.
Assuntos
Antivirais/economia , Carbamatos/economia , Custos de Medicamentos , Medicamentos Essenciais/economia , Prioridades em Saúde , Hepatite C Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Compostos Heterocíclicos de 4 ou mais Anéis/economia , Sofosbuvir/economia , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Carbamatos/uso terapêutico , Medicamentos Essenciais/uso terapêutico , Compostos Heterocíclicos de 4 ou mais Anéis/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Sofosbuvir/uso terapêutico , Organização Mundial da SaúdeRESUMO
Abstract-A moral right to health or health care, given reasonable resource constraints, implies a reasonable array of services, as determined by a fair deliberative process. Such a right can be embodied in a constitution where it becomes a legal right with similar entitlements. What is the role of the courts in deciding what these entitlements are? The threat of "judicialization" is that the courts may overreach their ability if they attempt to carry out this task; the promise of judicialization is that the courts can do better than health systems have done at determining such entitlements. We propose a middle ground that requires the health system to develop a fair, deliberative process for determining how to achieve the progressive realization of the same right to health or health care and that also requires the courts to develop the capacity to assess whether the deliberative process in the health system is fair.