The answer to your question is largely dependent on when in the timeline of the outbreak the cure is discovered, and how quickly the zombie virus spreads.
If the outbreak starts off slowly, appearing first in some isolated parts of the world, authorities in more developed countries may have the time to organize themselves successfully. In this scenario their plans for tackling the outbreak will revolve around saving as many people as possible.
Zombies would probably be shot if a large mob of them threatens an area, however individuals, or small groups could be tackled by well armored, and specifically equipped personnel. Even then, the logical solution would be to shoot first, and deal with the grieving families later, rather than risk more lives.
However, politicians and policy makers may cave to demands made by well meaning, but ultimately ignorant voters claiming that Zombie Lives Matter! The fact that a cure exists has the most likelihood of being a "disastrous" complication in this scenario.
Imagine a country which is struggling to contain a zombie outbreak. The government, under pressure from the mobs, and hoping for reelection, may implement ineffective, and ultimately deadly, rules of engagement, which lead to complete devastation. For example, a police officer may shoot a newly infected zombie, and find himself arrested for murder!
Soon enough officers would be allowing zombies to tear into family members, or bystanders, too afraid of the consequences to defend themselves and others. This would quickly lead to an apocalyptic scenario where the government completely loses control, and people are left to fend for themselves.
Military units may start operating under the local authority and leadership of more rational politicians, or even rebel against the clueless civilian leadership, and only obey their ranking officers. This is the scenario under which a country is most likely to end up breaking into isolated city states. Survivors who don't trust the "higher ups", because they cocked the entire defense of the country up.
These pockets of survivors may end up treating some of their own bitten members, however few, if any, will have the resources to rehabilitate a large number of zombies.
Overwhelming Waves of Zombies
If the virus takes the world by storm, and large population centers are lost to hordes of flesh eating zombies, then the response will probably focus on survival, completely ignoring the humanitarian angle. The politicians who would have otherwise tried and implemented brain-dead policies would likely end up zombie bait before the Zombie Lives Matter posters are even printed.
The surviving leadership would likely declare martial law, march out the troops they have available, and lay waste to the hordes of zombies infesting the country in any way they can. An effort would likely still be made to cure key personnel, such as political leaders, scientists, or soldiers - after all, you need those people to win the conflict.
However, your run-of-the-mill zombie civilian would probably be afforded little to no mercy, due to simple economics. After all, a bullet to the brain is much cheaper than the very involved process of curing them, and in this situation resources are going to be tight.
Another aspect that may or may not come into play is that once it's found out that the virus can be cured, people may go to reckless lengths to try and contain bitten loved ones, possibly with disastrous consequences.
For example, imagine a situation where soldiers declare an area clear, however someone locked up their entire infected family in a garden shed. At one point those infected may break out, causing another outbreak when those zombies wreak havoc in the neighborhood.
Or even worse, imagine a family member hopeful of curing his infected relatives shooting a soldier, or police officer who wants to put them down.
Down-voter, please explain thyself.