Prompt: "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. Ċ 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. Ċ 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. Ċ 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.