Diálogo institucional e direito à saúde

Abstract

The work seeks to analyze problems involving the implementation of the right to health in Brazil, the distributive conflict underlying the theme and the role of representative institutions, the judiciary and civil society in this process. It is intended to reaffirm the importance of protecting the right to health and, at the same time, to criticize a certain euphoria that took place in recent years and came to understand the judiciary as the ultimate guardian of constitutional promises not kept by the representative branches. This article examines the constitutional experiences of countries that do not embrace the doctrine of judicial supremacy and struggle themselves to balance judicial review with more democratic mechanisms. Thereafter it is offered the theoretical framework of theories of institutional dialogue as a less one-sided alternative to meet the challenges triggered in the field of health care. The work emphasizes the importance by concerns about the effectiveness of the constitution, but it proposes a reflection on what would be the best alternative for it, coming to the counterintuitive conclusion that perhaps the most effective way is a weak from of judicial review, which do not disregard the potential of the Law, but that values more democracy and synergistic interaction between the branches and representative civil society.