Judicialization of health and contributions of the Norman Daniels’ Theory of Justice

Abstract

The judicialization of health generates debate in various areas of knowledge, with particular contributions from legal experts, doctors, and policymakers. Because of the diversity of those involved, several topics are considered. Some studies highlight positive arguments for the judicialization of health, whereas others defend the need for establishing criteria for or limitations to judicial action. Furthermore, others still report concerns over the possible negative consequences of this process. In order to offer an analysis on this topic, this study provides a review of the literature and adopts the theoretical instrument by Norman Daniels, who proposes a reflection on the needs for health and the ways in which these needs can be met, the moral importance of health and the inequalities in health to be an injustice. In conclusion, it can be affirmed that some of these studies defended in the Brazilian national debate cannot be sustained in light of the data presented herein. Throughout Norman Daniels’ thoughts on the Theory of Justice in terms of questions of health, it can be deduced that, in the Brazilian debate, there are few conflicts over the moral importance of the topic; in addition, not much is known about the second aspect of the theory, which is the reflection when inequality in health can be considered unjust. It is therefore proposed that Daniels’ theory adds two important points to the national debate. The first involves the need to place health problems within a greater reflection in public policy. The second, which involves the need to establish limits to meeting health demands, fits into a public policy that seeks to better meet the needs of the population, which is not a simple cost-benefit assessment