The transformation of Argentine abortion law in the last fifteen years provides an interesting terrain to explore an additional shift in Latin American “shifting legal visions”: a shift towards pragmatic constitutional interpretation. Through the systematic revision of press coverage, interviews, court dockets, congressional transcripts, and civil society’s documents, the paper seeks to unpack, first, the role of context and, more specifically, that of legislative facts and public policy assessments in judicial and congressional deliberations on the constitutionality of abortion. To that effect, the paper analyses the empirical and public policy dimensions of the interpretive turn in the Supreme Court decision in F., A.L. and in the recent hearings considering the constitutionality of a new abortion bill before the House of Representatives and the Senate. Secondly, the paper connects these ideational changes with a series of legal education and research strategies.
The objective of this study is to verify from the legal and political levels and in the light of the principle of material equality, the possibility of establishing collection in the Brazilian Unified Health System–“SUS”. The conclusions are: (i) legally, collection is possible, since gratuity is not a principle nor a guideline of “SUS”, but rather comes from a purely political option. Furthermore, the Constitution authorize “other sources” of revenue to be used to finance the system; (ii) politically, the collection is convenient and timely, since, based on the reality of underfunding that the “SUS” is facing – which, however, does not stem from a real lack of resources, but from a legal unavailability of these, and it is not feasible to admit that people with financial conditions invest in the legal position of demanding from the Public Administration the provision of services by the “SUS” free of charge. However, a wide range of exemptions must be established.
We will analyze the violation of the human right to food. This is a right whose most severe aspect of rape is hunger. Overcoming hunger is the second goal of the UN Agenda 2030. In 2018, Brazil returned to FAO’s Hunger Map. On the other hand, according to the FAO, Brazil will be the largest exporter of agricultural products in the world until 2022. According to Ziegler, there is no shortage of food. The problem of hunger is the access. Food, today, is not a right but a commodity. The financial speculation of food is a new form of “enclosure” and one of the main factors for the growth of prices of the basic basket. The concentration of 85% of the food traded in the world, in the hands of only four companies, makes these agents have great political force. Against this authoritarian form of biopower, a common movement is emerging that, in its manifestations in the world forums, demand democracy and access to fundamental rights. Even if democracy is in an eventual context of death.
Global health scholars argue that the WHO, as the central global health authority, should centralize and coordinate actions tackling global health threats like pandemics. We call this the centralization approach. This paper questions this approach. Specifically, by looking at Gostin and Rugger, the paper identifies the main problems of Global Health Governance to then discuss the reasons why they defend the centralization approach as the most adequate solution. The paper challenges their approach by introducing the idea of decentralization captured by the principle of subsidiarity. The paper argues that the principle of subsidiarity provides a more reasonable, efficient, and effective solution to the identified problems because it clarifies the different degrees of responsibilities that different global health stakeholders should bear in relation to a certain global health problem, while empowering local communities and also fostering a global culture of coordination and cooperation.
The discovery of new diseases is frequent and alarming. The health care sector is in continuous need of new drugs to counter these diseases. Drug companies face financial risks and significant costs in drug R&D, which may end in failure. The risks and costs create dilemmas for the drug makers; firms charge high prices for their products to make profits and recover all costs incurred from their failures. Regarding demand, affordability is an issue, as prices can be out of reach for most patients, thus undermining the objective of the ICESCR, which guarantees the rights of the public to equal access to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The clash between consumers and producers in terms of drug pricing makes a good case for government intervention to increase total social welfare and establish a balanced approach to pricing regimes. This study assesses the impact of drug patent extensions and their constraints with an aim to maximise total social welfare.
The right to health is a Constitucional right in Chile. Even though this right is not protected by the Constitutional Action for Protection (the most frequently used form of tutela, recognized in Article 20 of the Constitution), the jurisprudence of the last 11 years reveals that courts are admitting Actions for Protection to secure this right. In some cases, the protection is indirect, but in several it is direct. In the last three years, the Supreme Court has admitted several cases, ordering the State to pay for very expensive medication, bypassing the legislation that regulates the access to health services. This paper analyzes the Chilean jurisprudence, in particular the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, and discusses the kind of model of justiciability of economic rights that the Supreme Court seems to be installing in Chile, and also discusses its potential impact in public policies regarding healthcare.