ForumsWEPRTo prevent? Or to cure?

14 3965
Crunk88
offline
Crunk88
125 posts
60

Here is debatable topic. Weather we should start more prevention of diseases or to keep trying to cure them. For example why are we spending so much money on curing AIDS? when to prevent it we can use condoms. Why are we trying to cure lung cancer(and other cancers), when all we have to do is stop smoking and eat our vegetables. In most cases the person who gets a disease has provoked it by being malnourished, and doing nothing to prevent it from happening. Are we jus getting lazy?

  • 14 Replies
Raistlin847
offline
Raistlin847
271 posts
160

We should work more on preventing disease, but still a bit on curing them. For one its a lot less inexpensive to prevent a disease then to find a cure and give that cure to people. Also, if people would just prevent themsleves from getting a disease, It would be much easier to stop it from spreading.

XCoheedX
offline
XCoheedX
954 posts
5,085

Well I guess people these days are getting more lazy. Also people are just too ignorant to stop hurting themselves and the people around them. If we find cures to the diseases, we could just stop the diseases. But if cures were found, then people will still hurt themselves knowing that there is a cure.

Spartan
offline
Spartan
2,843 posts
12,465

Yes preveting thme would be beter.If one person it can speard and affect many people.

GoldenCross
offline
GoldenCross
73 posts
150

We should put most of our efforts into prevention, but still some into cures. A person who gets a genetic disease does not have a choice whether or not he gets it, so that is why we still need to work on cures.

RaptorExx
offline
RaptorExx
2,226 posts
2,425

I agree, if we made it easier to stop spreading it, then we probably would have more time to focus on finding a cure, rather letting it spread all over the place and make it evolve or something worse.

Crunk88
offline
Crunk88
125 posts
60

I agree, prevention is most important, but if a child has a disease then working on curing them also is important. But that brings us back to why the child has it? Maybe its the parents fault for being irresponsible.

Raistlin847
offline
Raistlin847
271 posts
160

Not neccasarily though, kids can get disease without the parents even realizing it till its too late. Disease is, hard to blame on someone, because its so random and hard to control. Unless it was a desease that could be vaccinated, then it would be the parents fault.

GoldenCross
offline
GoldenCross
73 posts
150

I mean, if you get cancer from smoking, that is no one's fault but your own. However, if your family gene pool is prone to some disease, and you haven't edged that disease on in any way, there really isn't much you can do.

Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,508 posts
1,485

Your forgetting the economic side for this. Lets say a company like bayer spends millions on curing AIDS and he does so. THEN that company is going to fly straight off the roof making this cure and it'll make a good lot of cash I can assure you. So alot of companys want that cure for cash.

Also, sometimes condoms can break/slip, usually people notice. The difference is though, that AIDS can come from people you could have had some weird "I did people" life that you don't know about. You 2 eventually fall in love and end up with AIDS. Would also suck, I say, we should do somekind of test for it. [Since AIDS takes sometimes even 10 Years to poof up, even if you had it with alot of people, you won't know you have it until some time]

Also, the other fact is if that if someone has Aids and you sadly get pushed into doing drugs with needles. You might be at some drug party and if someone gave you their used needle you have a new way to get AIDS. So it REALLY sucks.

I say, that we should REALLY pinpoint on how to prevent getting it. [Using condoms, getting tests with your partner before anything, not doing this, not doing drugs, etc., etc.]

Also, GoldenCross, any cancer that came out of family Gene pools is usually stoppable. Besides BreastCancer which really sucks, things like Diabetes can be controlled and you can live with for some time. Also, I'm not sure about this, but if your parents had the $$ and hadn't vaccinated you, I THINK there'd be some problem with the law then. Not sure, though.

Megamickel
offline
Megamickel
913 posts
805

We've already created a vaccine for AIDS. It's just like the flu, though - it changes rapidly, so a new vaccine must be acquired periodically.

Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,508 posts
1,485

The vaccine isn't proven, nor will it save the lives of everyone. As it changes, all we have is a way to stop it for a while. So I dont' believe that not preventing and just working on a cure that may not come for another 200 centuries is a waste of time and lives.

Crunk88
offline
Crunk88
125 posts
60

I dont get you point about it being economic, i disagree. Drug companies push BILLIONS of dollars into producing drugs to "cure" people. Have you ever notices how many drug commercials there are on American television and there all like "take this and it will cure you" but then "some side affect are vomiting, diarrhea ect ect" then lastly they say "dont take this drug of you have a heart condition". I think thats Corrupt because drug companies are making millions on this crap! Not all drugs are tested enough and they DO kill people. Prevention is a better because u dont have to deal with drug companies or a pharmacy. Its simple, you eat right and stay away from toxin and other harmful things like smoking and eating junk food.

Armed_Blade
offline
Armed_Blade
1,508 posts
1,485

okay, so your telling me we should have somehow prevented polio in the past and not have made the vaccine? Stupid.

Also, the stuff Drug companies make aren't super vaccines, and when they say side effects they mean to some people it will and some it wont'. If you have a heart condition then ALOT of medicines are off limits because they go through your bloodstream.

Also, Drugs in America are the most highly tested in the world. They don't kill, they might not just be effective. If a drug could kill, it wouldn't be legal. Because after a company produces it, it has to be contracted, and tested on humans.

Also, Lets say I ate right, stood away from toxin, other harmful thing, and I was sudenly one of the people hit with type 2 diabetes? Then what? Oh, wait, no one spent time making insulin or blood sugar watchers. I'm done for.

Oh yeah, Claps for that one.

Its exactly why so much money is pushed into cures, and when one breaks through you'll get someone with a bunchah Cash.

Crunk88
offline
Crunk88
125 posts
60

You dont understand what im saying, let me explain to you once again.. Polio has bin around since te Egyptians, and yes we needed a vacine for it because it was getting to epidemic proportions. I never said "stop curing desease" i said there should be more prevention of disease. Diabetes can be prevented if you take in the right amount of sugars ect, but if you do get it then yeh your gona be using a blood sugar watcher for the rest of your life. Now was that worth eating all that unhealthy food? weather you got too much or not enough sugar your still gona be wishing you were smart enough to prevent it from even hapening. thank you for the aplause. Also some prescription drugs have been known to kill people, but they have bin taken off the marked after a few hunred inocents. Prevention of disease is the right way to go, and if we have to cure a disease then so be it. Then we find out how to prevent it from coming back, because there is no real cure to anything.

Showing 1-14 of 14