English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The responses to the judicialisation are based on legal discourses and local practices that impact on access to health and justice. How citizens understand rights is key to holding government accountable. On a human right in health approach and emphasising the right to health and access to justice, this article explores these links through in-depth interviews of claimants at the Rio de Janeiro State Department, whose assist vulnerable groups. To the interviewees, the right to health was a remote, legal fiction, and entitlement and application were liable be treated ‘flexibly’; judicialisation was a last resort to meet urgent demands and the impossibility of ‘consuming’ by their own means; the lawsuits as ‘slow’, ‘painful’ and unreliable in ensuring rights; access to health involved sacrifices and the need to fight for their rights. They understood was intimately bound up with the vulnerabilities, obstacles and service denial they had encountered previously. The bureaucratic, technological and technocratic dimensions of health care were incomprehensible and created barriers to access and conflicts. The findings suggested ineffective government responses to the main health problems of vulnerable populations and call for urgent efforts to address equitable and emancipatory implementation of health and justice policies.

Judicialisation, right to health and justice at Rio de Janeiro’s ‘Health Dispute Resolution Chamber’: Users’ conceptions