| dc.description.abstract | This work’s objective resides in a study of the judicial decision in lawsuits which aim to enforce concessions by the State in name of the right to health. This research follows the dialectical method, as two opposite theories will be analyzed, them being the enforceability of the right to health and the State’s economic capacity. At first, it was attempted to define in what consists the right to health before the Federal Constitution of 1988. In sequence, a general understanding of public budget was established. With that, the aspects of the judicial decision in those cases were analyzed in order to ascertain possible criteria that ought to be observed by the judges, as to guarantee a responsible approach in regard of those two perspectives. In conclusion, although attested that the State has financial limits, it also can’t be admitted that individuals have their right to health forfeited in furtherance of less relevant public expenditures. | |
