IELTS Discussion Essay on Health & Government & Society

In the field of public health, two contrasting views exist: one suggests that government regulations on healthy food can improve a nation's health, while the other believes that health is a personal choice and responsibility. I lean towards the latter view.

Those who support government control over dietary habits have their reasons. They claim that by enforcing laws on food nutrition, the government can regulate the quality of food in the market, thereby lowering the incidence of diet-related diseases. They further strengthen their argument by stating that such laws could deter unhealthy food consumption, promoting a healthier society. They also argue that these regulations could educate the public about nutrition, leading to better dietary choices. They back this up by noting that many people lack nutritional knowledge, and government regulations could effectively bridge this gap.

However, I agree with those who think health is a personal responsibility. Firstly, it's important to remember that health is a complex concept, with diet being only one part of it. For example, even if someone eats a balanced diet, lack of exercise could still result in health problems like obesity. Secondly, it's vital to respect personal freedom and autonomy. Individuals should have the right to decide what they eat, and imposing laws could violate this personal freedom. This is especially important in a democratic society, where personal liberties are highly valued.

In conclusion, while there are strong arguments for government involvement in dietary habits, the view that health is an individual's responsibility is more convincing, given the complex nature of health and the significance of personal freedom.

In the realm of public health, there exists a dichotomy of views: one posits that government legislation regarding nutritious food can enhance a nation's health, while the other asserts that health is an individual's choice and responsibility. I am inclined towards the latter perspective.

Those who advocate for government intervention in dietary habits have their reasons. They argue that the government, by imposing laws on food nutrition, can control the quality of food available in the market, thus reducing the prevalence of diet-related diseases. This argument is further bolstered by the fact that such laws could discourage the consumption of unhealthy food, thereby fostering a healthier society. Additionally, they contend that such regulations could help educate the public about the importance of nutrition, leading to more informed dietary choices. This point is substantiated by the observation that many individuals lack knowledge about nutrition, and government regulations could fill this gap effectively.

Despite the aforementioned arguments, I align myself with those who believe in personal responsibility for health. Firstly, it is essential to consider that health is a multifaceted concept, and diet is just one aspect of it. For instance, even if a person consumes a balanced diet, lack of physical activity could still lead to health issues such as obesity. Secondly, it is crucial to acknowledge that personal freedom and autonomy should not be compromised. It is the individual's prerogative to decide what they consume, and imposing laws could infringe upon this personal liberty. This is particularly significant in a democratic society, where personal freedoms are held in high regard.

In conclusion, while there are valid arguments to support government intervention in dietary habits, the perspective that health is an individual's responsibility holds more weight, considering the multifaceted nature of health and the importance of personal freedom.