Prevention vs. Treatment - An eternal debate?
One of my favorite things about working in Global Health is that situations are rarely binary. You almost never have a choice between two options. Instead, you have a range of choices and a range of possible solutions. You don't have two sides to every story; you have 14. Good decisions are about balance, and looking for long-term systemic solutions instead of the quick fix.
In this context, what do we think about the prevention versus treatment debate that goes on about so many illnesses? Cancer and HIV/AIDS are the primary examples, but they are not the only ones. Fighting malaria requires decision-making about bednets versus treatment. Problems like heart disease and addiction also necessitate discussions of prevention and treatment.
I don't think, though, that setting up prevention and treatment in opposition to each other is a useful way to look at the issues. They go together, as an approach to fighting a disease. They combine into a response, along with other things like reducing social stigma and enhancing quality of life for those affected.
The real question to consider is, when designing your response, how much of each component do you use?
The post was written in response to Christine Gorman's Global Health Blogging Experiment.








COMMENTS (4)