THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RIGHT TO HEALTH IN BRAZIL: THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE IN ACCESS TO MEDICINES NOT INCLUDED IN THE NATIONAL LIST OF ESSENTIAL MEDICINES (RENAME)

Abstract

The proposal of this article is to examine the public health scenario in Brazil, focusing on the tension that arises when the Judiciary compels the State to provide medications not included in official lists. The core of the discussion lies in the gap between theory and practice: on paper, health is a universal right; in reality, it often fails precisely those who need it most. The question that emerges is whether injunctions and judicial decisions truly serve as a path to social justice or merely function as a temporary fix for a system already operating at its limits. To investigate this dynamic, the research adopts a qualitative and deductive approach, going beyond theoretical analysis by confronting academic literature with the concrete reality of existing laws and the most recent decisions of the higher courts (STF and STJ). What becomes evident is that judicialization is not the root of the problem, but rather a direct symptom of the gaps left by the Executive branch. When the State fails to deliver basic services, citizens turn to the courts to ensure their survival. The issue, however, is the domino effect: each individual decision places pressure on the planned budget, potentially compromising collective assistance. Ultimately, the role of the Judiciary, largely enabled by the intervention of the Public Defender’s Office, proves to be essential in safeguarding human dignity, particularly in ensuring access to healthcare for vulnerable populations. In this context, the strategic role of the Public Defender’s Office stands out in making these rights effective, even as its work faces structural limitations and increasingly stringent requirements imposed by recent case law, revealing a delicate balance between protecting individual rights and managing the impacts on the public healthcare system.