''Prevention is better than cure''. Researching and treating disease is too costly so it would be better to invets in preventative measures. To what extent do you agree

Undoubtedly, there is a quote saying that “prevention is better than cure”.

Whereas

some people would believe that having cautiousness is a better option in comparison to scientific research on the treatment of new diseases. For

this

, the essay will examine both the prospect of the argument and my views on

this

. Scientific research on dangerous diseases should consider the main prospect of the phenomenon in human health.

However

, Some would believe to have dishonesty about developing technology for treating disease would going to be expensive, which could be optimised by measuring the prevention of it.

Furthermore

, I would have to disagree with

this

statement because the major focus of research on treatments is bound to founding a successful cure. Sometimes the budget would

also

go over how much they have anticipated.

For example

, the coronavirus had caused a severe impact on Human healthcare, and the foundation of founding the perfect and optimal vaccine had to go under many circumstances. Treating that disease was way too expensive than we have determined but it was the phenomenon to save humanity.

On the other hand

, there is no doubt about spending investment on precocious measures would be the distinguished approach.

For instance

, cancer is one of the most vicious diseases in humankind, and even treatment for it is nearly impossible to find in the modern world.

In addition

, Several options like chemotherapy have shown better results, and prevention is better than cure is an example of Preventing measures are superior to finding a cure.

To conclude

, the Innovation of technology and a burst of new illnesses should better to be cured even if it's going to be costly. It seems to me that maintaining a balance between prevention is

also

important when there is no hope to find any treatment.