Garrett and Farmer
Laurie Garrett argues for continued global budgetary allocations for communicable disease programs and surveillance, emphasizing that investing in addressing non-communicable diseases at the expense of infectious disease control will have global repercussions if not addressed. She acknowledges that non-communicable diseases are a significant threat to public health, but she believes that communicable diseases should not be overlooked.
In contrast, Farmer et al. propose addressing both communicable and non-communicable diseases together in an integrated, diagonal fashion, arguing that efforts to reduce mortality and morbidity associated with either will be more effective if they are coordinated by building platforms to deliver both chronic and acute care.
While both arguments have merit, I find Farmer et al.'s proposal more compelling. First, addressing...
Health systems that are primarily designed to address one type of disease may be ill-equipped to handle another type of disease. Therefore, addressing both communicable and non-communicable diseases together can help create a more
holistic and comprehensive healthcare delivery system that is better equipped to address the full spectrum of health challenges that populations face.
Second, Farmer's proposal would more effectively combat health problems. This is because communicable...
…way is critical. While Garrett emphasizes the importance of continued investment in communicable disease programs and surveillance, Farmer proposes a more comprehensive approach that would strengthen health systems and enable more efficient and effective healthcare delivery. I find Farmers
argument to be the more convincing as it approaches the problem of health from a more holistic perspective, seeing how health problems are interrelated at various levels and in different ways. The key to addressing public health is not to do it piecemeal but rather to take it on holistically and as thoroughly as possible, with a view to the interrelatedness of…
