Introduction
The maxim that prevention is better than cure encapsulates a profoundly rational approach to public health: it is more humane, more effective, and more cost-efficient to prevent disease than to treat it after it has taken hold. Governments, as the only actors with the scale, authority, and resources to implement population-wide preventive measures, have a moral and fiscal imperative to act decisively on this principle. This essay argues that governments should act extensively on the principle of prevention, as the benefits to both individual well-being and national healthcare sustainability are overwhelming.
Government-led preventive healthcare programmes are vastly more cost-effective than curative treatment, reducing the fiscal burden on public health systems.
Explain
The economics of prevention are compelling: treating chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer after they develop is enormously expensive, whereas preventing their onset through public health interventions costs a fraction of the treatment bill. For governments managing finite healthcare budgets, investing in prevention is not merely ethical but fiscally essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of their healthcare systems. Every dollar spent on prevention saves multiple dollars in downstream treatment costs.
Example
A 2022 study by the World Health Organisation estimated that for every dollar invested in preventive measures such as vaccination, sanitation, and tobacco control, governments save between $2 and $14 in avoided treatment costs. Singapore's War on Diabetes campaign, launched in 2016, exemplifies this approach: with approximately 440,000 Singaporeans living with diabetes and the condition projected to cost the healthcare system $2.5 billion annually by 2030, the government invested in preventive measures including subsidised health screenings, the Healthier Dining Programme requiring lower-sugar options in hawker centres, and the Nutri-Grade labelling system for beverages. The Ministry of Health estimated that these preventive measures would save Singapore up to $1 billion in treatment costs over a decade.
Link
This strongly supports the case for governments to act on the principle of prevention, as the fiscal arithmetic of preventive investment is overwhelmingly favourable compared to the spiralling costs of curative care for preventable diseases.
Governments are uniquely positioned to implement population-wide preventive measures that individuals acting alone cannot achieve.
Explain
Many of the most effective preventive health measures require collective action at a scale that only governments can coordinate. Clean water supply, air quality regulation, mandatory vaccination programmes, food safety standards, and urban planning for active living are all preventive interventions that cannot be achieved through individual initiative alone. The public goods nature of these measures, where one person's protection depends on the actions of the entire community, makes government leadership not merely desirable but indispensable.
Example
Singapore's National Immunisation Programme, which provides heavily subsidised or free vaccinations against diseases including measles, diphtheria, and human papillomavirus, achieves coverage rates exceeding 95%, contributing to the near-elimination of these diseases in the city-state. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Singapore's government-led vaccination programme achieved one of the world's highest vaccination rates, with over 92% of the total population completing the primary vaccination series by 2022, dramatically reducing severe illness and mortality. This outcome would have been impossible without state-coordinated procurement, distribution, and public education efforts. In contrast, countries that relied more heavily on individual initiative, such as the United States, achieved lower vaccination rates of approximately 68% and experienced correspondingly higher per-capita mortality.
Link
This demonstrates that governments should act extensively on the principle of prevention, as population-wide preventive measures require the coordinating power, resources, and authority of the state to achieve the scale of coverage necessary for effective disease prevention.
Preventive government action addresses the social determinants of health, reducing inequalities that curative care alone cannot remedy.
Explain
Health outcomes are profoundly shaped by social and environmental factors, including income, education, housing quality, and access to nutritious food, that lie upstream of individual health decisions. Governments that act preventively on these social determinants of health can reduce health inequalities at their root, rather than merely treating the symptoms of systemic disadvantage after they manifest as disease. This upstream approach is both more equitable and more effective than relying solely on curative care, which tends to be accessed disproportionately by the affluent.
Example
Finland's North Karelia Project, launched in 1972 as a government-led community intervention to reduce cardiovascular disease, achieved a 73% reduction in coronary heart disease mortality over three decades through preventive measures including dietary change campaigns, smoking cessation programmes, and partnerships with the food industry to reduce salt and fat content in processed foods. The programme's success was greatest among lower-income populations, who had previously suffered the highest rates of heart disease, demonstrating the equity benefits of government prevention. In Singapore, the Healthier SG initiative, launched in 2023, enrolls every resident with a regular family doctor for preventive health check-ups and personalised health plans, with the explicit aim of reducing health inequalities by ensuring that preventive care reaches lower-income and elderly Singaporeans who might otherwise only encounter the healthcare system when already seriously ill.
Link
This reinforces the argument that governments should act comprehensively on the prevention principle, as state-led preventive interventions targeting social determinants of health reduce not only the overall disease burden but also the health inequalities that curative care alone is structurally incapable of addressing.
Counter-Argument
Critics argue that aggressive government preventive measures risk paternalistic overreach that infringes on individual liberty, citing the failure of Denmark's fat tax, which was repealed within fifteen months due to public backlash and its regressive impact on lower-income households. They contend that citizens should be free to make their own health decisions without state coercion.
Rebuttal
The Danish fat tax failed due to poor design and implementation, not because prevention is inherently paternalistic. Singapore's Nutri-Grade labelling system and Healthier Dining Programme demonstrate that governments can effectively shape health choices through information and environmental design rather than punitive measures. The WHO estimates that every dollar invested in prevention saves between $2 and $14 in treatment costs, and population-wide interventions like vaccination programmes and clean water provision, which require state coordination, have saved more lives than any amount of individual health decision-making could achieve.
Conclusion
In conclusion, governments should act extensively on the principle that prevention is better than cure, as the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that preventive measures save more lives, reduce more suffering, and cost less than treating disease after onset. From vaccination programmes to public health regulations to health education, state-led prevention is the most effective and equitable approach to healthcare. While individual liberty must be respected, the collective benefits of prevention are too substantial to be sacrificed on the altar of unfettered personal choice.
Introduction
While the principle that prevention is better than cure holds intuitive appeal, the extent to which governments should act upon it raises serious questions about individual liberty, resource allocation, and the limits of state power. Aggressive preventive interventions can shade into paternalism, infringe upon personal autonomy, and divert resources from the treatment of those who are already ill. This essay contends that governments should act on the principle of prevention only within defined limits, balancing the public health benefits against the rights of individuals and the needs of those requiring curative care.
Aggressive government preventive measures risk becoming paternalistic overreach that infringes upon individual liberty and personal choice.
Explain
When governments act too broadly on the prevention principle, they risk crossing the line from public health protection into authoritarian control over personal behaviour. Mandatory dietary regulations, compulsory health screenings, and punitive measures against unhealthy lifestyles treat citizens as incapable of making their own informed decisions. In a liberal democratic society, the state's power to dictate personal health choices must be constrained by respect for individual autonomy, even when those choices are suboptimal from a public health perspective.
Example
Denmark's fat tax, introduced in 2011 as a preventive measure against obesity, imposed a surcharge on foods containing more than 2.3% saturated fat. The tax was repealed just fifteen months later after widespread public backlash, with citizens resenting government interference in their dietary choices and many crossing borders into Germany to purchase untaxed butter and meat. The administrative costs of the tax were also disproportionately high, and it was found to be regressive, disproportionately burdening lower-income households. In the United States, New York City's attempted ban on supersized sugary drinks in 2012 was struck down by the courts as an overreach of executive power, with the judge ruling that it was 'arbitrary and capricious' for the government to dictate the size of beverages citizens could purchase.
Link
This demonstrates that governments should not act without limits on the prevention principle, as excessively prescriptive preventive measures provoke legitimate public resistance, infringe upon personal freedom, and can prove counterproductive when they alienate the very populations they seek to protect.
An excessive focus on prevention can lead to the neglect of curative care, disadvantaging those who are already ill and in urgent need of treatment.
Explain
Healthcare systems operate with finite resources, and an overemphasis on preventive spending can come at the direct expense of curative services, diagnostic capacity, and treatment infrastructure. Patients with existing conditions, particularly those suffering from rare diseases, cancers, and chronic illnesses that could not have been prevented, have an equally valid claim on public resources. A government that prioritises prevention to the detriment of cure effectively abandons those who are already sick.
Example
The United Kingdom's National Health Service has faced criticism for its growing emphasis on preventive health programmes while curative waiting times have deteriorated dramatically. As of 2023, the NHS waiting list for elective treatment reached a record 7.75 million cases, with patients waiting an average of 14 weeks for treatment. Cancer patients reported delays of up to 62 days from urgent referral to first treatment, against a target of 31 days. Critics argue that the allocation of resources to preventive programmes, while laudable in principle, has contributed to a crisis in curative capacity that directly harms patients who need treatment now. In Singapore, patients with rare diseases have similarly advocated for greater government spending on curative treatments, noting that the emphasis on preventive health, while important, does not help those already diagnosed with conditions like spinal muscular atrophy, where a single course of treatment can cost over $2 million.
Link
This demonstrates that governments should not act on the prevention principle to an unlimited extent, as doing so risks creating a two-tier system where the healthy benefit from prevention while the sick are left waiting for the curative care they urgently need.
Many preventive measures rest on uncertain or evolving scientific evidence, making blanket government mandates premature and potentially harmful.
Explain
The science of disease prevention is constantly evolving, and what is considered a sound preventive recommendation today may be revised or reversed tomorrow. Governments that act aggressively on prevention risk locking in policies based on incomplete evidence, causing unintended harm, or eroding public trust when recommendations change. A more cautious approach, one that provides information and incentives rather than mandates, allows for the flexibility to adapt as scientific understanding improves.
Example
The history of dietary guidelines illustrates the danger of premature government preventive mandates. For decades, the United States government promoted a low-fat diet as the key to preventing heart disease, enshrined in the 1992 Food Pyramid, which encouraged heavy consumption of carbohydrates and discouraged dietary fat. Subsequent research revealed that this advice was misguided: saturated fat was not the primary driver of cardiovascular disease, and the high-carbohydrate diets promoted by the government likely contributed to the obesity and diabetes epidemics. The US government was forced to substantially revise its dietary guidelines in 2015, but not before decades of misguided preventive policy had influenced the diets of millions. Similarly, the recommendation to routinely prescribe aspirin for heart attack prevention, once standard medical practice promoted by government health agencies, was reversed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force in 2022 after evidence showed that the risks of bleeding outweighed the benefits for most adults.
Link
This demonstrates that governments should exercise caution in acting on the prevention principle, as the evolving nature of medical science means that aggressive preventive mandates based on current evidence may prove harmful or counterproductive as understanding advances.
Counter-Argument
Proponents of extensive prevention argue that governments are uniquely positioned to implement population-wide measures that individuals cannot achieve alone, citing Singapore's vaccination programme achieving over 95% coverage and its COVID-19 response as evidence that state-led prevention saves vastly more lives per dollar than curative approaches.
Rebuttal
While prevention is valuable, an excessive focus on it risks neglecting patients who are already ill and in urgent need of treatment. The UK's NHS has seen waiting lists reach a record 7.75 million cases while resources are directed toward preventive programmes, and cancer patients face delays of up to 62 days for treatment. In Singapore, patients with rare diseases requiring treatments costing over $2 million per course have advocated for greater curative investment, demonstrating that the prevention principle must be balanced against the immediate needs of those the healthcare system has a duty to treat now.
Conclusion
Ultimately, while governments should incorporate prevention into their healthcare strategies, they should not act on this principle to the exclusion of curative care or at the expense of individual autonomy. A balanced approach that invests in prevention while respecting personal choice and maintaining robust treatment services is both more ethical and more practical than an all-encompassing preventive state. The principle of prevention is sound, but its application must be tempered by prudence, proportionality, and respect for the diverse values of a pluralistic society.