"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?

Health

is a vital part of our lives. It is thought that it is better to use financial resources for preventing diseases as research and

treatment

are more expensive. I entirely disagree with

this

view and think that the investment in cure significantly benefits public

health

.

Firstly

, efforts for improving

treatment

are undoubtedly worth the cost. It is impossible to prevent all types of disease during an individual's lifetime due to its diversity; there are communicable and non-communicable diseases and those caused by genetics.

Treatment

, for

this

reason, plays a crucial role in saving people from developed symptoms. Public

health

has considerably improved not because of the improvement in preventive measures but in

treatment

.

For instance

, influenza was a deadly infection centuries ago but the fatality rate is substantially lower nowadays.

Furthermore

, prioritising prevention is not a cost-effective way to improve the

health

of a nation.

This

is because it requires lifestyle changes in individuals,

such

as increasing physical activity and having a well-balanced diet. Because the government does not have the power to take control of its citizens' lives, the return on investment is low when the primary focus is on prevention. In the recent coronavirus outbreak,

for example

, preventive measures have not proven effective because they required a drastic change in the way people live. In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the idea that the investment in prevention is superior to costly research and

treatment

in view of the effectiveness. It is crucial that a country ensure a strong

health

care system for those requiring medical assistance.