Abstract
This article analyzes the perception of judges of Maranhão on judicialization of public health. This qualitative research study intends to investigate how judges perceive their performance, which decision-making parameters they adopt and what alternatives they suggest. Ten federal and state judges were interviewed, through a semi-structured interview, socio-demographic questionnaire and content analysis of data. The results show that some judges discredit the managerial skills of the government bodies. The judicial intervention in public health-related matters is considered a positive interference in the government. The right to health is conceived as a fundamental social right, and the decisions are classified as emotionally hard. There is a great tendency to defer orders. On the other hand, there is a possibility of dialogue with Public Administration.
Brazil; judicialization; public health; health care rationing; health services administration; right to health