Healthcare Rights On Trial In Latin America A Comparative Study

A muchos pacientes se les niega el acceso a los servicios de salud y a los medicamentos en América Latina, por lo que los jueces tienen que intervenir. Esta tendencia de judicialización se ha acelerado durante la última década. En un sentido similar, la literatura existente sobre la justiciabilidad y judicialización del derecho a la salud se ocupa de la cuestión de si los jueces deben intervenir o no en la protección del derecho a la salud. Objetivo: Evaluar los desafíos derivados del litigio del Derecho a la Salud en Colombia, Argentina, Brasil y México. Metodología: Marco analítico y metodológico cualitativo, descriptivo y comparativo. Incluye una revisión bibliográfica y 37 entrevistas semiestructuradas a jueces, académicos y funcionarios gubernamentales. Además, se realizó un análisis jurisprudencial de la jurisprudencia más reciente en los 4 países mediante análisis de contenido. Resultados: En los cuatro países estudiados persiste un enfoque moderado orientado a las repercusiones en el litigio y, preocupado por las consecuencias del proceso de judicialización. Esto supone, en primer lugar, la incorporación de algunos límites y condiciones en el reconocimiento del derecho a la salud por parte de los Tribunales y, en segundo lugar, en términos generales, que las sentencias no están teniendo en cuenta las causas estructurales que afectan a la litigiosidad. Conclusiones: Los tribunales deberían avanzar hacia un equilibrio intencional en el reconocimiento, los remedios, la supervisión y la evaluación de las sentencias. Esto implica ser más reflexivos y estratégicos que reactivos y pasivos. En otras palabras, cuanto más inmaduro sea el sistema sanitario y más causas estructurales se perciban, más reflexivos y estratégicos deberían ser los Tribunales y más se debería promover el reconocimiento, la protección, la supervisión y la evaluación. Los Estados también deben adoptar medidas contundentes contra las causas estructurales y deben hacer operativo un enfoque de la salud más práctico y basado en los derechos, de manera tangible.

This forward-looking book provides an in-depth analysis of the major transformations of the right to health in Latin America over the past decades, marked by the turn towards the pharmaceuticalisation of health care. Everaldo Lamprea-Montealegre investigates how health-based litigation has deepened inequalities in the global South, exploring the practices of key actors that are reclaiming the right to health in the region.

Governance by regulation – rules propounded and enforced by bureaucracies – is taking a growing share of the sum total of governance. Once thought to be an American phenomenon, it is now a central form of state action in every part of the world, including Europe, Latin America, and Asia, and it is at the core of much international lawmaking. In Comparative Law and Regulation, original contributions by leading scholars in the field focus both on the legal dimension of regulation and on how this dimension operates in those places that have turned to regulation to meet their obligations.

Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines. Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process. In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain. Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.

Are the courts our friend or our foe? This book has three parts: Part I considers the case for judicial independence Part II looks at the question 'Is judicial independence under threat?' Part III reflects on whether judicial independence be defended and protected. Prompted by the constitutional crisis following the referendum of 2016, the Foundation for Law Justice and Society convened the second Putney Debates. Now convened on an annual basis, they provide a forum each year for the discussion of matters of constitutional importance. The original Putney Debates were held in St Mary's Church, Putney in 1647. The Civil War had been won, the King was held prisoner, the New Model Army was in control. In late October of that year, the weekly meeting of the High Council of the New Model Army, under the chairmanship of Oliver Cromwell, together with several civilians, turned into a debate about the constitution. This is perhaps the only occasion in modern history that a constitutional convention has been held on the English constitution.

This book replaces the successful Controversies in Health Law. Under the same editorship and much the same authorship, it is substantially larger (30 chapters instead of 18) and correspondingly more comprehensive. It retains the lively analysis and the focus on controversial and cutting-edge problems. The chapters are broken up into parts covering Litigation and Liabilty; Reproductive Technologies; The Sequelae of the End of Life; Public Health; Ethical Frameworks and Dilemmas; Regulation; Human Rights and Therapeutic Jurisprudence; Research and Vulnerability and Information, Privacy and Confidentiality . They consider issues raised by new technologies, changing legislation and altering community expectations; by new regulatory processes for medicine and all of the health professions; by the fundamental changes to civil liability for medical negligence; by the fierce debate over the role of coroners. Disputes and Dilemmas in Health Law covers questions on property in human tissue and on the ethical and legal aspects of the genetics revolution; provides a modern take on "old" issues such as reproductive law; takes account of changes relating to expert evidence; and discusses how difficult cases in relation to psychiatric injury and wrongful life are pushing compensability to its edges.

Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines. Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process. In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain. Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.