It is often argued that governments should allocate most of their funds to educating citizens about a healthier lifestyle that prevents them from contracting serious illnesses, rather than investing exclusively in treatment. While I largely agree with this view, I believe the feasibility of such programs also depends on a nation’s economic and financial status. In this essay, I will discuss both views and provide an overall conclusion to the issue.
On the one hand, implementing measures that encourage citizens to take care of their health, such as vaccines or regular screenings and check -ups, is conducive to reducing the prevalence of chronic conditions in the long run and raising awareness of their risks.For example, during the COVID pandemic, Italy’s campaigns on widespread vaccines like AstraZeneca and the use of more sophisticated and customizable equipment helped mitigate the negative effects of the virus and alleviate pressure on hospitals and doctors.
On the other hand, some underdeveloped regions like Africa cannot afford to invest much of their budget in prevention, so mortality rates are alarmingly higher than in European countries. In fact, despite improvements being made and new and effective vaccines being introduced , African governments constantly face challenges such as a lack of specialized doctors and nurses, of basic hygiene services and roads to distribute medicines, especially to the most remote areas.
For example, the recent outbreak of Ebola in the Republic of Congo led to a higher death toll due to lacking infrastructure and limited access to tests.
In conclusion, while generally prioritising prevention over cure is crucial in curbing the negative effects of an illness, less affluent countries should receive more financial subsidies to improve and reinforce their healthcare systems once essential services are established and basic needs are met.