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 importance of investigating, identifying and understanding the main moral conflicts experienced by magistrates in the daily life of their health jurisdiction is justified from the increasingly intense transfer of the decision on important issues in the area of health to the Judiciary. Given that in these situations, judges generally have a margin of discretion in choosing standards - policies, principles (legal or moral) or rules - that they should use in some cases to obtain an adequate result, the question of the so-called discretionary power of the judge is highlighted. But how far goes the discretion of the judges? Can they freely decide, according to legal rules, legal principles, politics, or even according to their moral convictions, in their unique and exclusive mind? This study seeks to bring answers to these questions from Ronald Dworkin's theory, in the context of their differences with Herbert L. Hart and Richard Posner, specifically with regard to the connections between morality and law. In the end, we developed a technique to identify moral conflicts experienced by magistrates that we apply in concrete cases of health demands.

Decisões judiciais em matéria de saúde: as conexões entre o Direito e a Moral