Medicamentos sem registros na ANVISA : uma abordagem institucional
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5102/rbpp.v8i3.4736Keywords:
Deferência, ANVISA, MedicamentosAbstract
Este artigo possui por objeto, a partir da abordagem institucionalista, a investigação dos níveis de deferência dos Poderes Legislativo e Judiciário à Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA). Metodologicamente, serão analisadas decisões judiciais e legislativas que preterem as prerrogativas da ANVISA no que se refere à permissão de acesso a medicamentos sem registro, e indicar que os Poderes revisores deveriam observar nas suas decisões as suas limitações institucionais. Tem-se que a originalidade se baseia na inquirição da possibilidade de Poderes revisores substituírem a ANVISA nas suas atribuições para o propósito de atender interesses individuais de acesso a medicamentos não autorizados. Identificou-se, a partir disso, que relativa deferência à agência administrativa no que se refere à dispensação de medicamentos pode ser relevante e necessária às políticas públicas de medicamentos.References
ARGUELHES, Diego Werneck. LEAL, Fernando. “O argumento das “capacidades institucionais” entre a banalidade, a redundância e o absurdo”. Direito, Estado e Sociedade, no. 38, 2011.
BOLONHA, Carlos; EISENBERG, José; RANGEL, Henrique. “Problemas Institucionais do Constitucionalismo Contemporâneos”. Direitos Fundamentais e Justiça, ano 5, no. 17, 2011.
BRESSMAN, Lisa. “Beyond Accountability: Arbitrariness and Legitimacy in the Administrative State”. Vanderbilt University Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper, no. 2, 2003.
CURRIE, Peter. “Restricting Access to Unapproved Drugs: A Compelling Government Interest”. Journal of Law and Health, vol. 20, no. 309, 2007.
DI PIETRO, Maria Sylvia Zanella. “Discricionariedade Técnica e Discricionariedade Administrativa”. Revista Eletrônica de Direito Administrativo, no. 9, 2007.
EPSTEIN, Richard. “Regulatory Paternalism in the Market for Drugs: Lessons from Vioxx and Celebrex”. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, vol. 5, no. 741, 2015.
FISHER, Louis. Constitutional Conflicts Between Congress and the President. Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2007.
JASANOFF, Sheila. Law’s Knowledge: Science for Justice in Legal Settings. American Journal of Public Health, vol. 95, no. 1, 2005
LEONARD, Elizabeth. “Right to Experimental Treatment: FDA New Drug Approval, Constitutional Rights, and the Public's Health” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, vol. 37, 2009.
NISHIOKA, Sérgio Andrade. “Como é Feito o Registro de Medicamentos Novos no Brasil”. Prática Hospitalar, no. 45, 2006.
PAULSEN, Michael. “The Most Dangerous Branch”: Executive Power to Say What the Law Is”. Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 83, no. 217, 1994.
POSNER, Eric; VERMEULE, Adrian. “Interring the Nondelegation Doctrine”. University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 69, no. 1721, 2002.
SANDEL, Michael. Liberalism and its Critics. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1984.
SARLET, Ingo. “Algumas considerações em torno do conteúdo, eficácia e efetividade do direito à saúde na Constituição de 1988. Revista Eletrônica sobre a Reforma do Estado, no. 11, 2007.
SEN, Amartya. A Ideia de Justiça. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2011.
SHAPIRO, Sidney; GLICKSMAN, Robert. “Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Quiet Revolution in Administrative Law”. Duke Law Journal, vol. 1988, no. 5, 1988.
SUNSTEIN, Cass. “Nondelegation canons”. John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper, no. 82, 1999.
______. Why Nudge? The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism. Yale: Yale University Press, 2014.
SUNSTEIN, Cass; THALER, Richard. “Libertarian Paternalism is not an Oxymoron”. The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 70, no. 4, 2003.
VERMEULE, Adrian. Judging under Uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2006.
______. “Rationally Arbitrary Decisions” (in Administrative Law). Harvard Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper Series, no. 13-24, 2013b.
______. “The Administrative State: Law, Democracy, and Knowledge”. Harvard Public Law Working Paper, no. 13-28, 2013a.
______. The Constitution of Risk. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
______. Three Strategies of interpretation. Chicago Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers Series, no. 75, 2004.
VERMEULE, Adrian. SUNSTEIN, Cass. “Interpretation and Institutions”. Chicago Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers Series, no. 28, 2002.
VOLOKH, Eugene. “Medical Self-Defense, Prohibited Experimental Therapies, and Payment for Organs”. Harvard Law Review, vol. 120, 2007.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
