Please give me some comment and feedback! If you can help me correct my mistakes in the essay, I will be much more appreciated! THANK YOU!
"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?
One question that has caused a great deal of controversy over the years is health financial plan. Many commentators are on the view a huge fraction of health finances should be spent on prevention campaigns whist there are those who believe more funding should be distributed to treatment than anticipatory events. From my personal perspective, an equal balance of funding to treatment and pre-emptive campaigns is an ideal ratio. This viewpoint will be further scrutinized in the following paragraphs.
To begin with, it is often said that a high number of incorrigible sickness are caused by the lack of prevention measures. For instance, many smokers are not aware of the detrimental effects that smoking can bring. Such harmful effects include cancer, aging and more. However, experts believe if governments are able to increase awareness of incurable sickness such as educating children on sun-screen protection in school to prevent skin cancer, not only the number of irredeemable disease cases will fall, but also it is cost-saving to the government as there will be lesser patients seeking for treatments.
Despite the funding on prevention measure, there are, of course, oppositions who believe a large ratio of health finances should be apportioned on cure. This is due to the fact that a large number of irredeemable illnesses such as cancer are caused by family genetic. Medical researchers state that these deadly diseases are often inevitable and it is essential for governments to allocate extra funding on these treatments.
My conclusion would be that this is a well-balance issue. It is necessary for the ministry of health to equally finance between prevention measure and treatment.
"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?
One question that has caused a great deal of controversy over the years is health financial plan. Many commentators are on the view a huge fraction of health finances should be spent on prevention campaigns whist there are those who believe more funding should be distributed to treatment than anticipatory events. From my personal perspective, an equal balance of funding to treatment and pre-emptive campaigns is an ideal ratio. This viewpoint will be further scrutinized in the following paragraphs.
To begin with, it is often said that a high number of incorrigible sickness are caused by the lack of prevention measures. For instance, many smokers are not aware of the detrimental effects that smoking can bring. Such harmful effects include cancer, aging and more. However, experts believe if governments are able to increase awareness of incurable sickness such as educating children on sun-screen protection in school to prevent skin cancer, not only the number of irredeemable disease cases will fall, but also it is cost-saving to the government as there will be lesser patients seeking for treatments.
Despite the funding on prevention measure, there are, of course, oppositions who believe a large ratio of health finances should be apportioned on cure. This is due to the fact that a large number of irredeemable illnesses such as cancer are caused by family genetic. Medical researchers state that these deadly diseases are often inevitable and it is essential for governments to allocate extra funding on these treatments.
My conclusion would be that this is a well-balance issue. It is necessary for the ministry of health to equally finance between prevention measure and treatment.
Do You Need