It is true that some people argue for more public expenditure on measures to prevent illness by promoting a healthy lifestyle. While this would certainly result in benefits to public health, I disagree with the idea that this should be a higher priority than the treatment of people who are already suffering from illness.
The promotion of a healthy lifestyle to prevent illness is undoubtedly a worthy aim of any government. The sedentary routines of many people make them more prone to the risk of diabetes or heart disease as a result of their inactivity. In modern life, people are so caught up in the pressures of work or study that they neglect the importance of keeping fit. Dependence on the car exacerbates the problem of lack of exercise. Thus, government provision of affordable leisure and sports facilities, coupled with promotion campaigns to keep fit and healthy would certainly be a worthwhile initiative to raise the general level of public health.
However, in the process of decision-making on health matters, I would argue that expenditure should be allocated first to the treatment of people who are ill. Firstly, not all illnesses are the result of unhealthy lifestyle choices by individuals. For example, respiratory disorders are affected by air pollution in cities, while poor sanitation and contaminated drinking water contribute to outbreaks of dysentery and cholera. Secondly, failure to subsidize medicines or to invest in hospitals would certainly lead to many deaths which could have been avoided by timely treatment. Hospitals, for instance, have many roles in providing treatment, not only surgery but also in conducting vital research into the treatment of many life- threatening conditions, such as cancer or asthma.
In conclusion, while promoting healthy living is important, treatment must have priority in health service spending.
It is true that
some
people
argue for more public expenditure on measures to
prevent
illness by promoting a
healthy
lifestyle. While this would
certainly
result in benefits to public health, I disagree with the
idea
that this should be a higher priority than the
treatment
of
people
who are already suffering from illness.
The promotion of a
healthy
lifestyle to
prevent
illness is
undoubtedly
a worthy aim of any
government
. The sedentary routines of
many
people
make
them more prone to the
risk
of diabetes or heart disease
as a result
of their inactivity. In modern life,
people
are
so
caught up in the pressures of work or study that they neglect the importance of keeping fit. Dependence on the car exacerbates the problem of lack of exercise.
Thus
,
government
provision of affordable leisure and sports facilities, coupled with promotion campaigns to
keep
fit and
healthy
would
certainly
be a worthwhile initiative to raise the general level of public health.
However
, in the process of decision-making on health matters, I would argue that expenditure should
be allocated
first
to the
treatment
of
people
who are ill.
Firstly
, not all illnesses are the result of unhealthy lifestyle choices by individuals.
For example
, respiratory disorders are
affected
by air pollution in cities, while poor sanitation and contaminated drinking water contribute to outbreaks of dysentery and cholera.
Secondly
, failure to subsidize medicines or to invest in hospitals would
certainly
lead to
many
deaths which could have
been avoided
by timely
treatment
. Hospitals,
for instance
, have
many
roles in providing
treatment
, not
only
surgery
but
also
in conducting vital research into the
treatment
of
many
life- threatening conditions, such as cancer or asthma.
In conclusion
, while promoting
healthy
living is
important
,
treatment
must
have priority in health service spending.