It is more important to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness

than to spend it on treatment of people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree of disagree?

It is said that taxpayers' money should be used to encourage the prevention of illnesses based on a
healthy lifestyle rather than to focus on treating patients. I personally find it hard to disagree with this
view.

Admittedly, the government is supposed to provide the general public with free healthcare. The tax
revenues that the government receives from its citizens should be allocated for social services, one of
which is healthcare. If the government did not take care of ill people, how could they afford medical fees
which are becoming more and more costly?

However, what I consider to be more advisable is that governmental money should be spent on the
promotion of how to lead a healthy life. Firstly, if all people become fully convinced of the importance of
choosing healthy diets involving less meat and more vegetables instead of consuming junk food, they
will start to adopt such a healthy lifestyle and, therefore, will be able to avoid a host of health problems.
It goes without saying that prevention is better than cure, but the problem is so many people in modern
society are significantly affected by the increasing advertising of junk food nearly everywhere, which
should be stopped by the government. Secondly, it should be regularly pointed out by the authorities
that living a healthy life by working out on a daily basis will result in fewer patients visiting hospitals,
thus reducing the amount of money spent on hospitalization and other medical fees. Obviously, this will
help alleviate the government's burden of taking care of patients.

All things considered, what I firmly believe is the spending of governmental money should be centered
on illness prevention by raising public awareness of regular exercise and healthy eating habits.

================

Research into new types of medicine and treatments are essential for improving health and dealing with
diseases. Who do you think should fund these researches: private companies, individuals or
governments?

It is necessary to conduct studies on new medicines and remedies in order to improve people’s health as
well as cure their illnesses. In my opinion, such research should be financed by either the government or
individuals, not private businesses.

If medical research is sponsored by private companies, patients would have to suffer from the increased
price of medicines and treatments. In fact, such research requires the funders to cover various expenses,
such as buying equipment or hiring staff. However, most companies often see money as one of their
primary objectives, so they would have to make sure their revenues are high enough to prevent losses
and stay profitable. Some profit-oriented companies may even make researchers set a higher price for
their research outcomes to maximize their earnings. Consequently, medicine products as well as medical
treatments would be more expensive for patients to afford, and those who are impoverished would be
more likely to succumb to their disease.

It is the governing bodies and individuals who should financially support studies related to the
improvement of public health and the invention of cures for diseases. First, maintaining people’s quality
of life is one of the main responsibilities of the government in a country. In order to fulfill this duty, the
government needs to ensure that more and more citizens will be healed and their well-being can be
enhanced by spending the national budget researching new medicines and medical treatments. Second,
individuals should be another fund provider because medical research is carried out for the sake of their
own health. As new types of medicines and new treatment practices are successfully devised, it is each
individual in society that uses these medicines and treatments when they get sick.

In conclusion, I believe that the government and every person in society rather than private companies
should fund research into the discovery of new medicines and healing methods.

========================

It is more important to spend public money promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than
to spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree of disagree?

Many people say that in order to fight diseases, the government should invest more money in
encouraging a healthy lifestyle instead of spending money on the treatment of people who are already
suffering from illness. I advocate this point of view.

On one hand, I agree that a large proportion of state budget should be allocated to activities or
campaigns that promote a healthy lifestyle. This is because a lot of diseases nowadays are actually the
direct result of people’s unhealthy habits. For example, children who eat fast food on a daily basis
commonly can suffer from a range of health issues, such as weight problems and obesity. These diseases
can be prevented if people are made more aware of the severe consequences of an unhealthy diet. In
addition, there are a number of incurable diseases, such as HIV, AIDS and many forms of cancer. Of
course, there are drugs and treatments that can prolong the life of patients suffering from such diseases,
but the better solution in this case is obviously trying to prevent these diseases from occurring, instead
of trying to cure them, which can often place a heavy burden on patients’ families, and on society as a
whole.

On the other hand, the treatment for people who are already ill should also receive adequate funding,
due to the fact that some diseases simply cannot be prevented. People living in many tropical or coastal
regions, for example, are highly vulnerable to water-borne diseases after a natural disaster such as a
tsunami or heavy flooding. Additionally, there are also some illnesses and disorders that are inherited.
For instance, if a person suffers from asthma, it is highly likely that his children will also contract
respiratory related diseases, regardless of their diet or lifestyle. These mentioned cases would be almost
impossible for people or the government to prevent, and therefore money needs to be spent on the
treatment of patients.

In conclusion, both promoting a healthy lifestyle and spending money on the treatment of people who
are already ill are equally important in the fight against diseases, and each country should develop
flexible plans to adapt to different situations.

=============================

People should look after their health for personal benefits, rather than a duty for a society. What extent
do you agree or disagree?

It has been argued that people today should care for their own personal health purely to enjoy the
personal benefits that are gained from having good health, rather than as a duty to others in their
society. Personally I believe that people should take good care of their health not only to reap the
associated benefits, but also as a way of helping to uplift the lives of the citizens within their own cities
and countries.

Many people claim that the secret to a happy life is through achieving and maintaining good health, and
I also stand by this notion. When someone experiences good physical and mental health they are able to
enjoy their life to the fullest. Good health allows people to pursue their hopes and dreams and enjoy
human relationships with family and friends. Without good mental and physical health, these ideals are
difficult to attain.

In addition to this, today, people are suffering from mental and physical sickness and diseases more so
than ever before. This, in turn, causes a heavy load on a country’s healthcare industry and causes large
financial burdens to the country’s national budget, which comes at the cost of the tax paying citizens. If
people were to look after their health better, it would reduce such financial burdens and the money
could then be spent on other services that would benefit the quality of life for the society as a whole.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that all people should strive to achieve and maintain the highest levels of
health possible not only so that they can be happy and enjoy their own life, but also so that they can
contribute towards a more happy and healthy society around them.

==========================

“In many countries, children are becoming overweight and unhealthy. Some people think that the
government should have the responsibility. To what extent do you agree or disagree?”

Childhood obesity has become a typical sign of deteriorating public health the world over, especially in
Western-based countries, where massive amounts of unhealthy food is consumed on a daily basis. In
this regard, some people believe governments should do whatever is needed to improve this situation.
However, we should not single out governments as the only ones responsible for combating the
childhood obesity crisis.

The role of a competent and responsible government is to ensure the well-being of its people. That is to
say, if there is any serious threat to the people, as childhood obesity is, the government should be the
one to first realize such a threat, introduce and put solutions into practice. However, apart from
encouraging regular exercise and healthy diets, I doubt that the government has any further role to play.

The duty to combat obesity in children should not fall on the government alone because parents are, for
good reasons, a greater source of influence on children’s unhealthy life. For one, an obese child is often
malnourished because they do not receive appropriate nutrients from their food, a truth that reveals
parents’ poor choice of diet for their kids. This fact also suggests that parents can have a direct impact
on improving their children’s health by choosing healthy eating patterns that contain less sugar and fat.
On the other hand, obesity is also caused by lack of physical activity. This can be exemplified by the
sedentary lifestyle favored by a large number of youths nowadays. And parents are the only ones who
can either encourage or force their children to do more physical tasks or exercise.

The government should of course do what they can to curb the obesity epidemic, no matter how small
their impacts might be. Also, I feel the parents of obese children are to blame, and thus need to take
responsibility for their kids’ unhealthy condition.
=========================

“Despite huge improvements in healthcare, the overall standard of physical health in many developed
countries is now falling. What could be the reason for this trend, and what can be done to reverse it?”

The fact that healthcare condition has significantly been improved, yet the overall level of physical
health is considerably decreasing is a headache issue in many industrialized nations. In my point of view,
there are two main causes and two respective solutions should be done by government and individuals
to tackle the above mentioned problem.

I personally believe that unbalanced lifestyle and unhealthy diet are major causes of poor health. In era
of modernization, people are fully equipped with facilities, which enable them to work and play more
comfortably with less physical activities. For examples, people can drive to works by motorbikes and
cars instead of walking or riding bicycle. Many people also prefer staying at home playing games or
watching TV to playing outdoor sports. In addition, due to good taste, low cost and convenience, fast
food and frozen products have increasingly become favourite choices of many consumers. However,
most scientists agree that these kinds of food contain less nutrients but higher level of preservatives,
cholesterol than fresh products, which makes them more prone to serious diseases, i.e. obesity,
diabetes, cardiovascular disease.

Fortunately, this condition can definitely improved by encouraging people to do more physical exercises
and choose healthier meals. Life is so boring if people just spend all day at work then come back home
and sleep. Government should spend more money on facilitating equipment at public parks as well as
organizing campaigns about the significance and benefits of playing sports, outdoor activities. In such a
way, people will be keener on doing exercises every day. Furthermore, the importance and good
impacts of fresh products, especially vegetables and fruits on health should be informed in more details
in various public means of communication. Particularly, governments may financially support market of
those kinds of food so that they are affordable for all people.

In conclusion, imbalanced style of living and unhealthy diet have made overall health condition in
developed countries go down. However, I strongly believe that more physical exercises and fresher
meals are able to mitigate the problem.

=======================

“Some people believe that it is the responsibility of individuals to take care of their own health and diet.
Others however believe that governments should make sure that their citizens have a healthy diet.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.”

An increasing concern for many governments around the world is the declining health of their citizens
due to a poor diet. While some people believe governments should be responsible for improving the
health of their nation, others believe it is up to the individual. This essay will examine both sides of the
argument.

There is no doubt that individuals must take some responsibility for their diet and health. The argument
to support this is the fact that adults have free will and make their own choices about what they eat and
the exercise that they do. Children are also becoming less healthy. However, their parents are the ones
who provide their evening meals so it is their responsibility to ensure these meals are nutritious and
encourage them to avoid junk food and sugary snacks during the day.

Despite these arguments, there is also a case for advocating the intervention of the state. People these
days often have little choice but to depend on fast food or ready meals that are high in sugar, salt and
fat due to the pressures of work. Governments could regulate the ingredients of such food. Some
governments also spend huge amounts of tax money on treating health problems of their citizens in
hospitals. It would be logical to spend this on preventative measures such as campaigns to encourage
exercise and a good diet.

Having considered both sides of the issue, I would argue that although individuals must take ultimate
responsibility for what they eat, governments also have a role to play as only they can regulate the food
supply, which openly encourages a poor diet. It is only through this combination that we can improve
people’s health.

It is argued that providing more sports centres or health clubs would be the most effective method for
improving public health. From my point of view, however, proper health education would be a better
measure.

On one hand, people’s health has been greatly enhanced thanks to participation in sports facilities. It is
an undeniable fact that fitness levels are increased by taking part in physical activities such as doing
daily exercise or playing sports. Therefore, the increasing popularity of gym classes or sports clubs gives
people more chances to improve their health. After a hard day at work, many residents in my
neighbourhood attend evening yoga classes in order to keep fit and stay healthy.

On the other hand, I would argue that increasing the provision of sports amenities would have little
impact on public health. This can be explained by the fact that many people who paid for an annual gym
membership failed to go entirely after just one month. Therefore, I think that it is more important to
educate citizens about basic health awareness. A person would easily avoid some potential health
problems if he is equipped with sufficient basic knowledge about medicine and health care. For example,
when a child knows more about the adverse effects of smoking, he might be less likely to take up this
bad habit in his adulthood. Public campaigns and health protection programmes, thus, should be
promoted so that people know how to protect their health effectively.

In conclusion, the growing prevalence of sports facilities has brought a wide range of health benefits for
people; yet, I personally believe that raising public awareness through health campaigns would have a
more positive impact on improving people’s health.

============================

Should parents be obliged to immunise their children against childhood diseases?

Or do individuals have the right to choose not to immunise their children?

Some people argue that the state does not have the right to make parents immunise  their children.
However, I feel the question is not whether they should immunise but  whether, as members of society,
they have the right not to.
Preventative medicine has proved to be the most effective way of reducing the incidence of fatal
childhood diseases. As a result of the widespread practice of immunising young children in our society,
many lives have been saved and the diseases have been reduced to almost zero.

In previous centuries children died from ordinary illnesses such as influenza and tuberculosis and
because few people had immunity, the diseases spread easily. Diseases such as dysentery were the
result of poor hygiene but these have long been eradicated since the arrival of good sanitation and clean
water. Nobody would suggest that we should reverse this good practice now because dysentery has
been wiped out.

Serious diseases such as polio and smallpox have also been eradicated through national immunisation
programmes. In consequence, children not immunised are far less at risk in this disease-free society
than they would otherwise be. Parents choosing not to immunise are relying on the fact that the
diseases have already been eradicated. If the number of parents choosing not to immunise increased,
there would be a similar increase in the risk of the diseases returning.

Immunisation is not an issue like seatbelts which affects only the individual. A decision  not to immunise
will have widespread repercussions for the whole of society and for this reason, I do not believe that
individuals have the right to stand aside. In my opinion immunisation should be obligatory.