A garantia de acesso ao direito fundamental à saúde versus o princípio da reserva do possível: uma análise conforme a jurisprudência do supremo tribunal federal

Abstract

The gift Work of Completion of Course, which has by theme “guaranteeing access to the right fundamental to health versus the Reserve Principle of the Possible”, seek to know, through analysis the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court – STF, generated between 2011 and 2020, if there is influence from that Principle in the judgments of Court Supreme. Work is configured by exploratory nature, through the literature review e consult the STF jurisprudence. Thus, the general objective was to understand if the Reserve Principle of the Possible is or is not applied in the decisions of the STF involving claims of positive benefits in charge of the State, materializing the fundamental right to health. In this perspective, the specific objectives were outlined in identifying what is the understanding of the doctrine regarding the application of the Principle of the Possible Reserves cases of search for guarantee access to the fundamental right to health through the Judicial Power, as well as analyzing whether this principle had a significant influence on the STF judicial decisions between 2011 and 2020, in view of the claims for access to the fundamental right to health. This monograph was developed on a theoretical basis by the authors who compose its bibliography, according to the references listed at the end, as well as through case studies, being, from the jurisprudence of the STF, within the aforementioned time frame. The jurisprudence was selected in a survey on the Court website, using the themes “access to health” and “reserve of the possible”. Thus, the analysis took place through the reading of the content present in the judgments, generating the making of texts with answers, enabling the final conclusion that the Principle of the Reserve of the Possible, despite having demonstrated its strong presence in the works of researchers and Brazilian indoctrinators do not have significant influence on the Supreme Federal Court's judgments, in cases that have access to the fundamental right to health, as can be seen from the analysis of the judgments originating in the space of a decade (2011/2020).