"Prevention is better than cure". Researching and treating diseases is too costly. So it would be better to invest in preventive measure To what extent do you agree?

There are two competing philosophies in the healthcare and pharma industries. One is to spend enough resources on both

cure

and

prevention

and the latter is to concentrate mainly on the

prevention

part as it yields long term benefits.

However

, in my opinion, while I agree that

prevention

is a better long-term strategy, there must be sufficient expenditure on the healing aspect as well.

Also

, it would be cost effective as well.

Firstly

, there are millions of people who are already suffering from existing ailments, some of which are fatal. If most of the resources are spent on preventive measures for which there could be cheaper alternatives (

for example

Condoms for HIV),

then

millions of patients who are already suffering will meet a certain death.

Secondly

, preventive medicine

also

needs a backup of treatment. There were instances of failure on the preventive medicine part. Considering

this

, to eliminate a disease, wherever possible, a strategy with a combination of

prevention

and

cure

the work of providing treatment for or attending to someone or something

care

should be deployed.

Thirdly

, it is not cost effective to deploy all the eggs in one basket as well. Invested by organizations or not, the public expenditure would grow exponentially if a

cure

is not found in time.

In addition

to

this

, valuable productive hours of the working class would be lost. Compared to

this

, the research spending would be much lesser. To conclude, while preventive medicine is a better way of dealing with a disease in the long run, investing in a

cure

for it augments the welfare of patients and it will be cheaper as well.