Present a written argument or case to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic. “Prevention is better than cure.” Out of a country’s health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
The topic of whether to treat illness or prevent illness has been grown to be an inexorable one. This is about primary prevention of illness and secondary or tertiary prevention of illness.
In the first place, if the country is to focus on preventing illness and promoting health rather than curing illnesses, this would surely save a lot of the country’s resources since there would not be any life-threatening conditions that might need a lot of resources, such as the ambulance and also the hospital items whiles these could be saved for times of emergencies. Secondly, preventing illness will surely save time in the greater portion since enough time would not be needed to care for a single patient. Also, when illness is prevented, it will improve the lives of the people since they would not have to spend a large sum of their hard-earned monies buying drugs and paying huge hospital bills.
By contrast, the curing of illnesses after they have been contracted will surely take enough time. For instance, malaria could have been prevented by clearing choked gutters and sleeping under mosquito nets; when this is not done, some whole household members could all be infected at the same time, and it will take a lot of time to care for all these people. Secondly, this will cause financial loss to the country. Also, it may cause further complications from illnesses.
In conclusion, I totally agree with spending on health education and preventative measures rather than treating illnesses after they have contracted to save resources, save time and also improve the lives of the people.
Follow Us on IELTSFever Twitter for more updates