One more with band prediction please...
“Prevention is better than cure”. Researching and treating diseases is too costly so it would be better to invest in preventive measures. To what extent do you agree?
A huge amount from the health budget goes into the treatment of various diseases. It is believed that the same investment should be made on prevention rather than treatment. My agreement with this opinion is only partial as I believe diseases would not entirely be eradicated and the need for treatment would be ever-present.
Prevention of diseases helps the masses in avoiding a number of health issues. According to a survey conducted by the International Society of Physicians, around 90% of the heart diseases are an outcome of inadequate prevention. The survey ascertained that if the people had avoided the use of unhealthy food, most of the heart disease cases could have been prevented. If the health budget is spent on providing healthy food to the people and taking precautions against the viral infections, a lot of diseases can be prevented.
In spite of all of its benefits, prevention cannot entirely replace treatment as it does not ensure 100% eradication of diseases. There is a small percentage of diseases that would always slip through the cracks and the patients would need cure against it. Therefore, it would not be feasible to spend the entire health budget on prevention while overlooking upon the treatment. Moreover, the diseases have an evolutionary nature and they become stronger by the day. A number of studies have proven that the diseases humankind is facing today have evolved over the past years. Hence, scientists need a continual research to learn the behavior of the diseases and the ways to cure them.
In conclusion, I believe that reallocation of the health budget toward disease prevention is a good idea. However, as prevention would not be able to eradicate the disease, expenditure on cure would always be a necessity for the health sector.
“Prevention is better than cure”. Researching and treating diseases is too costly so it would be better to invest in preventive measures. To what extent do you agree?
A huge amount from the health budget goes into the treatment of various diseases. It is believed that the same investment should be made on prevention rather than treatment. My agreement with this opinion is only partial as I believe diseases would not entirely be eradicated and the need for treatment would be ever-present.
Prevention of diseases helps the masses in avoiding a number of health issues. According to a survey conducted by the International Society of Physicians, around 90% of the heart diseases are an outcome of inadequate prevention. The survey ascertained that if the people had avoided the use of unhealthy food, most of the heart disease cases could have been prevented. If the health budget is spent on providing healthy food to the people and taking precautions against the viral infections, a lot of diseases can be prevented.
In spite of all of its benefits, prevention cannot entirely replace treatment as it does not ensure 100% eradication of diseases. There is a small percentage of diseases that would always slip through the cracks and the patients would need cure against it. Therefore, it would not be feasible to spend the entire health budget on prevention while overlooking upon the treatment. Moreover, the diseases have an evolutionary nature and they become stronger by the day. A number of studies have proven that the diseases humankind is facing today have evolved over the past years. Hence, scientists need a continual research to learn the behavior of the diseases and the ways to cure them.
In conclusion, I believe that reallocation of the health budget toward disease prevention is a good idea. However, as prevention would not be able to eradicate the disease, expenditure on cure would always be a necessity for the health sector.