Casos Lagos Del Campo X Acevedo Buendía

Abstract

A justiciabilidade dos direitos sociais é constantemente debatida no cenário interamericano, já existindo decisões da Corte IDH envolvendo esse grupo de direitos. Uma dessas sentenças, posteriormente invocada no Caso Lagos del Campo v. Peru como um precedente estabelecido, é o Caso Acevedo Buendía e outros v. Peru. Embora a sentença do Caso Lagos del Campo indique o precedente como favorável a justiciabilidade direita dos DESCA, questiona-se: trata-se de um reforço do precedente existente ou, apesar da referência expressa ao mesmo, de uma mudança de posicionamento da Corte de San José quanto à justiciabilidade dos direitos sociais? Utilizando-se dos métodos dedutivo e comparativo, é possível concluir que, embora a decisão faça referência ao precedente determinado no Caso Acevedo Buendía, o posicionamento adotado no caso Lagos del Campo é distinto daquele, atribuindo maior alcance à competência da Corte e a exigibilidade direta dos DESCA através do artigo 26 da Convenção Americana sobre Direitos Humanos, não definida no, em tese, precedente sobre o tema.

ORGAN RECOVERY: analysis of the organ harvesting process in Pelotas – RS

“…In this scenario, some of the reasons that lead to this position are: lack of knowledge about who can or cannot be a donor, the idea of reversing brain death, beliefs about body mutilation after organ collection and religious principles. 5 Based on family responsibility, current legislation (Law 9,434 updated by Law 10,211/2001) establishes that the family has the final decision on organ procurement, which impacts the number of donors.6 Therefore, it is known that there is a need of a well-prepared team to notify and inform the family of the possibility of donation, is also essential for the success of fundraising. 5 In this sense, the lack of knowledge about how the capture process works causes distrust and this way, social beliefs of body mutilation and disrespect towards loved ones develop.…”

“…5 Based on family responsibility, current legislation (Law 9,434 updated by Law 10,211/2001) establishes that the family has the final decision on organ procurement, which impacts the number of donors.6 Therefore, it is known that there is a need of a well-prepared team to notify and inform the family of the possibility of donation, is also essential for the success of fundraising. 5 In this sense, the lack of knowledge about how the capture process works causes distrust and this way, social beliefs of body mutilation and disrespect towards loved ones develop. However, this does not match the reality in the practice of harvesting, since ethical principles govern the organ collection process.…”

“…3 So that the means of procurement can be better utilized, it is necessary to create strategies aimed at overcoming the obstacles that make the process difficult, such as: failure in procurement logistics, communication between organ procurement and distribution notification centers, organization of time and means of transport to the recipient, since organs such as the heart and lungs have extracorporeal vitality for 3 to 4 hours, without their function being impaired. 5 Adding to this, the main impasse faced in the context of organ procurement is family refusal. This is due to limited knowledge about how the organ removal process occurs, as a small portion of the population is informed about the subject.…”

“…Even though the medical team, at the time of brain death diagnosis, advises the family about the possibility of organ donation and explains how the process works, it is known that it is a delicate moment for the family, making acceptance difficult. 5 Therefore, this article aims to analyze the flow of organ donation and procurement in the city of Pelotas (Rio Grande do Sul), in the year 2022.…”