Band 9 model answer
Advances in medicine now offer cures that were once unimaginable, yet many carry staggering price tags. Whether the state should fund such treatments for all, irrespective of expense, is fiercely debated. While I sympathise with the ideal, I disagree that unlimited funding is wise.
Those who support universal funding appeal to the sanctity of life, insisting that no one should die merely because a remedy is costly. This view is morally admirable, and in a compassionate society the principle that a person's survival should not depend on their bank balance is deeply persuasive. For a small number of life-saving therapies, such generosity is clearly justified.
However, treating cost as irrelevant is ultimately self-defeating, because every health budget is finite. Spending an enormous sum to extend one patient's life by a few months inevitably diverts money from vaccinations, maternity care or mental health services that could benefit thousands. Without limits, demand for ever more expensive drugs would quickly bankrupt the system, leaving everyone worse off. Responsible governments must therefore weigh the benefit a treatment delivers against its price, allocating resources where they save the most lives.
In conclusion, although the impulse to fund every treatment springs from genuine compassion, ignoring cost altogether is neither sustainable nor fair to the wider population. The state should guarantee essential and cost-effective care for all, while making difficult but transparent decisions about treatments whose price vastly exceeds their benefit.
Examiner’s notes
- Task Response: the writer concedes the moral appeal yet argues a clear 'disagree' position grounded in finite budgets and opportunity cost.
- Coherence: the pivotal 'However' marks a decisive turn, and 'therefore' draws a logical conclusion from the preceding reasoning.
- Lexical Resource: abstract, evaluative language such as 'sanctity of life', 'self-defeating' and 'cost-effective' conveys argument with precision.