"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 or disagree with this statement?
"Prevention is better than cure". I somewhat disagree with the aforementioned notion in view of there are inavitably diseases in our life to treat at all the time and the money spent on reasearch and development of diseases will probably bring in effective heath protection methods. In the first place, prevention is not always able to permanently stop illness. Wary as we are, we, once in our life, undeliberately fall ill. Although we obey obey our parents to bundle up, to turn off the fan, we eventually get a cold somehow. We are in an effort to avoid smoking and keep away from the cigarettes smoke, but, with the ever-increasing air pollution, we may get lung cancer. Prevention can provide us a healthy life with less illness but, anyway, it can not invariably ensure a disease-free world. It is an undeniable fact that researching and developing medicines plays a vital role in reducing and stopping illness. Ailments are solely treated easily when we clearly catch on their causes. Many scientists have been working on some characteristic ailments like, to take one example, heart attack and, consequently, some effective ways to avoid it have been discovered, for instance, working out frequently, going on a healthy diet, avoiding being shocked. As a result, heart attack in ealier time was apparently ine of the most perilous ailments, which killed many unlucky people, but it is no longer as dangerous as it used to be. The amount of money spent on researching and developing medicines might be a lot, however, it can lead to the discovery of many new efficient treating and preventing methods In brief, prevention is not always a good way to keep people safe from ailments. We should invest more into researching and developing medicines for further future.