Grande Ponto – State must pay for patient treatment to avoid irreversible blindness, determines RN Court

The 2nd Court of District de Caicó ordered the State of Rio Grande do Norte to provide medicines for health treatment to a patient diagnosed with severe proliferative diabetic retinopathy, an eye disease. In the decision, judge Janaína Lobo da Silva Maia highlighted the urgency of the treatment, given the risk of damage to the organ or impairment of function, which could cause irreversible blindness.

Aiming for clarification regarding the medications requested, the judge explains that questions were forwarded to the doctors responsible for preparing the budgets.

In this way, she identified that one of the medications was part of “an off-label treatment”, that is, with a use other than that approved in the leaflet or not registered with the regulatory health surveillance body.

However, he explains that this medication is widely used because it is a lower-cost medicine, maintaining relative safety when compared to similar medicines.

Next, it was noted that the requested medications were not available in the SUS for immediate delivery to the patient. In this sense, the judge highlighted that, in addition to the urgency, the author would not be able to pay for the treatment and highlighted that it was the State’s duty to ensure the constitutional right to health.

“Under this context, this preliminary judgment clearly shows the obligation of the State of Rio Grande do Norte, since denial would constitute an evident affront to rights and principles protected by the Constitution Federal/88, with a more striking expression on the right to life and health”, pointed out Janaína Lobo.

Regarding the fine for non-compliance, the judge stated that it will be determined “on the hypothesis of non-compliance with the court order, given the possibility of its implementation through a monetary blockade in the defendant party’s bank account, which proves to be less onerous to the treasury.”

Considering that the possibility of agreement between the parties was very remote and considering the duration of the process, the judge decided not to hold a conciliation hearing. The action was filed by the State Public Defender’s Office.