Abstract
This article examines the legal and bioethical tensions arising from the application of unnamed precautionary measures in the field of health in Colombia, Chile and Brazil. Two distinct categories of unnamed precautionary measures are analyzed: measures aimed at protecting life in emergency situations and measures related to access to medical treatment. Through a comparative jurisprudential analysis, the conflicts between patient autonomy and the State's duty to protect are explored. The research reveals significant differences in the approaches adopted by each country, as well as common challenges in the balancing of fundamental rights. It concludes that a clearer regulatory framework and greater consideration of bioethical principles in judicial decision-making on precautionary health measures are needed
References
Abramovich, V., & Courtis, C. (2002). Los derechos sociales como derechos exigibles. Trotta.
Alexy, R. (2002). Teoría de los derechos fundamentales (Trad. E. Garzón Valdés). [Theorie Der Grundrechte]. Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
Annas, G. J. (2015). The rights of patients: The basic ACLU guide to patient rights (3.a ed.). Southern Illinois University Press.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8.a ed.). Oxford University Press.
Biehl, J., Socal, M. P., & Amon, J. J. (2018). The judicialization of health and the quest for state accountability: Evidence from 1,262 lawsuits for access to medicines in southern Brazil. Health and Human Rights Journal, 20(1), 93-105.
Congresso Nacional do Brasil. (16 de março de 2015). Código de Processo Civil. [Lei Nº 13.105 de 2015].
Cassell, E. J. (2004). The nature of suffering and the goals of medicine (2.a ed.). Oxford University Press.
Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Sala Segunda de Revisión. (31 de julio de 2008). Sentencia T-760/08. [M.P: Cepeda, M.].
Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Sala Sexta de Revisión. (04 de julio de 2017). Sentencia T-423/17. [M.P: Escrucería, I.].
Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Sala Novena de Revisión. (15 de noviembre 2014). Sentencia T-970/14. [M.P: Vargas, L.].
Corte Suprema de Chile. (20 de noviembre de 2017). Rol N° 43.250-2017.
Corte Suprema de Chile. (2019). Rol N° 5.553-2019.
Daniels, N. (2008). Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1984). Rights as trumps. En J. Waldron (Ed.), Theories of rights (pp. 153-167). Oxford University Press.
Engelhardt, H. T. (1996). The foundations of bioethics (2.a ed.). Oxford University Press.
Ferraz, O. (2009). The right to health in the courts of Brazil: Worsening health inequities? Health and Human Rights, 11(2), 33-45.
Ferraz, O. (2011). Harming the poor through social rights litigation: Lessons from Brazil. Texas Law Review, 89(7), 1643-1668.
Figueroa, R. (2018). Jurisprudencia sobre transfusión de sangre y consentimiento informado de Testigos de Jehová. Revista Médica de Chile, 146(7), 914-917.
Gempeler Rueda, F. E. (2015). Derecho a morir dignamente. Universitas Médica, 56(2), 178-185.
Gert, B., Culver, C. M., & Clouser, K. D. (2006). Bioethics: A systematic approach (2.a ed.). Oxford University Press.
Gloppen, S., & Roseman, M. J. (2011). Litigating health rights: Can courts bring more justice to health? En A. E. Yamin & S. Gloppen (Eds.), Litigating health rights: Can courts bring more justice to health? (pp. 1-16). Harvard University Press.
Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2015). Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine (8.a ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Mackenzie, C., & Stoljar, N. (2000). Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Oxford University Press.
Pellegrino, E., & Thomasma, D. (1988). For the patient's good: The restoration of beneficence in health care. Oxford University Press.
Retamales, A., & Cardemil, G. (2009). Beneficios del ejercicio de la autonomía y consentimiento informado: Ejemplo de los Testigos de Jehová. Revista Médica de Chile, 137(10), 1388-1394.
Rodríguez Garavito, C., & Rodríguez Franco, D. (2010). Cortes y cambio social: Cómo la Corte Constitucional transformó el desplazamiento forzado en Colombia. Dejusticia.
Supremo Tribunal Federal do Brasil. (2019). Recurso Extraordinário 1.212.272 Alagoas. [M.P: Mendes, G.].
Supremo Tribunal Federal do Brasil. (2020). Recurso Extraordinário 566.471 Rio Grande do Norte. [M.P: Aurelio, M.].
Verbic, F. (2013). Medidas cautelares en el Código Procesal Civil y Comercial de la Nación. Rubinzal-Culzoni.
Yadón, Z. E., Gutiérrez Triana, J. A., & Rodríguez, A. (2018). Investigación de implementación para acelerar la adopción de tecnologías sanitarias: Experiencias desde América Latina. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 42, e65.
Yamin, A. E. (2014). Promoting equity in health: What role for courts? Health and Human Rights, 16(2), 1-9.
Yamin, A. E., & Gloppen, S. (Eds.). (2011). Litigating health rights: Can courts bring more justice to health? Harvard University Press.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Vía Iuris