Abstract
Judicial activism can be an important mechanism for citizens to protect their rights against legislative inertia and executive bureaucracy. However, when judges exceed decision-making power, a movement called judicial extremism, they generate legal uncertainty, as they do not have the expected legal basis for a court ruling, but only generic principles and moral values of the judge himself. The extremist judge, disrespects public policies, disrespects the public budget, disrespects the rights of the community, and imposes obligations on the Administration, without evaluating the consequences and without this generating effective social justice. In relation to public policies related to pharmaceutical assistance, judicial activism can help to correct management failures, but judicial extremism imposes on the Public Administration the supply of any medication, even if there is a therapeutic alternative available in public policy. This behavior has become widespread in Brazil and contaminates other countries with public health systems. The pharmaceutical industry gains the most, with marketing strategies or the creation of pseudo-differentiation between new pharmaceuticals and drugs, guarantee, with judicial decisions, an open consumer market, free from questioning and profitable. With the current global health crisis, information and misinformation about the disease and possible forms of treatment have enhanced the discussions and the role of tripartition of powers, collective and individual fundamental rights, economic groups, science, and assistance. A broad dialogue between the main actors in the process is needed so that fundamental rights are efficiently and guaranteed.