Art and music therapy vs costly drug treatments

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:08 am

The following appeared in a medical magazine:

"Art and music have long been understood to have therapeutic effects for individuals who suffer from either physical or mental illnesses. However, most doctors rarely recommend to patients some form of art or music therapy. Instead, doctors focus almost all of their attention on costly drug treatments and invasive procedures that carry serious risks and side-effects. By focusing on these expensive procedures rather than low-cost treatments such as art and music therapy, doctors are doing a disservice to their patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.


The above argument have three flaws. One of the flaws is physical or mental illness may need therapy which may help patients feel better if the patient is stable and needs conditioning which means cosumption of prescription drugs is mandatory. For example a patient suffering from some illness related to deficiency of Vitamin B in which case a drug that can revitalise the body with deficient mineral is more useful than art and music therapies which clearly cannot provide any minerals to the body. Art and music can further enhance the condition of the patient but cannot completely substitute drug.

Second flaw from the above passage is the statement which states most doctors rarely recommend to patients some form of art or music therapy which means the magazine implicates some doctors recommend to these therapies but if that were true then the above argument which condemn the treatment procedures must provide evidence of how those patients who are recommended art and music therapies respond to the therapies which would be useful to back their claim without which the claim seems baseless.

Which takes us to the third flaw of the argument which states about the preference of expensive procedures rather than low cost treatments. Here from above segments now it can be assumed that whether art and music is really medicine or a therapy that just enhances the condition of the patient. If considered as a proper medication then there is no other evidence which suggests the length of the treatment which would be helpful to determine whether the total cost of drugs really exceeds the total duration of treatment from therapies, but if it is considered therapy it nothing but it just adds extras costs on top of the inevitable medication that patient needs from consumption of drugs. Hence there is nothing to say therapies wont increase the health care costs.

Therefore one cannot undermine the role of art and music therapies in the process of recovery from any illness but it cannot be compared or substituted wholly with the treatment from medicines and drugs.

Can someone please help me rate my essay.


Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2021 10:49 pm
Thank you for the article, it's really great, music is now indispensable in each of our lives.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:01 am
Followed by:2 members
Thanks for useful info!