These days, medical science is rapidly developing, especially with the growth of personalized medicine that focuses on individual genetic information. However, the most effective method for improving public health is still widely debated. Some people believe that healthcare systems should concentrate on treating patients based on their genetic predispositions, while others argue that a universal public health approach is fairer and more beneficial for society. I completely agree that a universal public health approach is more equitable, and in this essay I will support my opinion with relevant examples.
Firstly, a universal public health system ensures that all individuals have equal access to medical services regardless of their income or genetic background. Public health programs focus on vaccination, sanitation, disease prevention, and health education, which benefit the entire population. For example, nationwide vaccination campaigns have successfully reduced the spread of infectious diseases in many countries. If governments invest more in universal healthcare systems, then a larger number of people will receive basic medical care and overall public health will improve.
Another reason why I disagree with prioritizing only genetic-based personalized medicine is that it can increase inequality in society. Genetic testing and individualized treatments are often expensive and may only be affordable for wealthy individuals. Take advanced cancer treatments based on genetic profiling as an example; they are highly effective but extremely costly. If healthcare systems focus mainly on personalized medicine, then low-income populations may be neglected and health disparities will widen.
In conclusion, although personalized medicine offers significant medical advancements, I believe that a universal public health approach is more practical and equitable. Governments should prioritize healthcare policies that benefit the majority of citizens rather than focusing primarily on individual genetic differences.