There is an age-old adage for health – ‘prevention is better than cure’. Some people put trust in this philosophy, and thus believe that preventing problems and illnesses is of higher importance than their treatments and medicine, and government funding should tilt towards the former. I agree to a certain extent, and will expand on my reasoning in the following paragraphs.
Preventing diseases is not only beneficial for the society, but also for the prospective patient as it saves them from financial, mental and physical distress of contacting an illness. This leads to a healthy society that has a higher rate of happiness and work efficieny. Certain maladies are easily contactable, as they spread by mediums of air or water, and cause much havoc and potential epidemics. So proper sanitation and control measures are preferred over cures, as this saves more lives.
But similarly, some dieases can’t be prevented or we have limited results in blocking them. For example, cancer or certain genetic diseases can hardly be guarded against. As such, rather than investing in preventive or palliative care, cures should be prioritized. These diseases are pervasive and claim millions of lives and affect millions more. Also, advancing biological science requires cataloging and combating these infections, so that they may come handy in an hour of need, or be applied in a benign way against other infections.
In conclusion, both preventing and curing diseases is necessary. The funding and attention of government should be decided by the general types of diseases.