ESSAY QUESTION:
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
Many people have believed that art and music have a tremendous amount of therapeutic effects for individuals who suffer from either physical or mental illnesses. In the argument stated above, it talked about how many doctors tend to ignore this phenomenon while focusing on more costly drug treatments and invasive procedures that carry serious risks and side-effects in order to treat their patients, hence not only putting patients in greater danger but at the same time contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States. I personally believe this argument is significantly flawed because it has no real proof of the effectiveness of art or music therapy, and at the same time, although many procedures and drug treatments may seem dangerous and at times invasive, they have been proven to be extremely effective in most cases, and lastly, even though those medical procedures could cost a great amount of money, it is the best way for people to receive the best medical care in the world.
First of all, the statement states that art and music have long been "understood" to have therapeutic effects, but it has never been proven before, there are no empirical studies that can show us how any form of art or music therapy could eventually cure the patient from deadly diseases. There are many other forms of therapy that were understood to be very effective in helping patients. For example, hypnosis therapy has been practiced by a great amount of physicians before, and it may seems incredible how some patients were cured through this therapy, but I would think a person would rather receive proper medical treatment instead of relying on an unproven therapy that may have side effects they are not even aware of.
Even though proper medical drugs and invasive procedures may indeed be dangerous for patients, such as an open heart surgery, a liver transplant, a bone marrow transfer, but they may actually be the most effective and efficient cure for those dying patients. Imagine you are in the hospital, lying on the bed with a cardiovascular disease that can stop your heart at any time, would you rather want to receive art or music therapy and see how it could help you or would you rather select to receive drugs and open heart surgery to fix the problem from the root. I am aware that there are many cases when patients decided to participate in an extremely dangerous procedure and eventually end up passing away due to the procedure, any possible solution in life has its own side effects, but what we need to see is what is the most effective.
Lastly, the argument mentioned the cost of these invasive procedures and dangerous drug treatments, how it is a potential factor leading to the rising cost of United States health care. I believe this statement is simply ridiculous. Health care in the any particular country is to help the country's citizen fight through diseases by any means necessary, and as I mentioned before, invasive procedures and dangerous drug treatments may very well be the best possible way for patients to receive a partial or complete cure. If I were a dying patient, I solemnly believe that I would choose to receive treatment through potentially harmful surgeries that have proven to be effective than some type of art or music therapy that don't even have any proven records but simply an understanding.
One way to improve the argument and make the argument more logically sound is to show some records of actual effectiveness of low-cost treatments and therapies such as in the form of art or music. The one reason I believe the argument is flawed is the fact the opening sentence states that people simply "understood" that art and music may have therapeutic effects. If the argument pertains certain statistical evidence that shows how effective art and music therapy can be, it would definitely strengthen the argument.
Overall, I believe the argument is clearly flawed, the underlying assumption of doctors focusing on expensive procedures rather than low-cost treatments such art and music therapy is not very strong because of the fact that low-cost treatments are not treatments that are proven by the medical society, and at the same time, although procedures may seem expensive and at times extremely risky, they have been proven through history and may possibly be the best method to save a life.
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
Many people have believed that art and music have a tremendous amount of therapeutic effects for individuals who suffer from either physical or mental illnesses. In the argument stated above, it talked about how many doctors tend to ignore this phenomenon while focusing on more costly drug treatments and invasive procedures that carry serious risks and side-effects in order to treat their patients, hence not only putting patients in greater danger but at the same time contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States. I personally believe this argument is significantly flawed because it has no real proof of the effectiveness of art or music therapy, and at the same time, although many procedures and drug treatments may seem dangerous and at times invasive, they have been proven to be extremely effective in most cases, and lastly, even though those medical procedures could cost a great amount of money, it is the best way for people to receive the best medical care in the world.
First of all, the statement states that art and music have long been "understood" to have therapeutic effects, but it has never been proven before, there are no empirical studies that can show us how any form of art or music therapy could eventually cure the patient from deadly diseases. There are many other forms of therapy that were understood to be very effective in helping patients. For example, hypnosis therapy has been practiced by a great amount of physicians before, and it may seems incredible how some patients were cured through this therapy, but I would think a person would rather receive proper medical treatment instead of relying on an unproven therapy that may have side effects they are not even aware of.
Even though proper medical drugs and invasive procedures may indeed be dangerous for patients, such as an open heart surgery, a liver transplant, a bone marrow transfer, but they may actually be the most effective and efficient cure for those dying patients. Imagine you are in the hospital, lying on the bed with a cardiovascular disease that can stop your heart at any time, would you rather want to receive art or music therapy and see how it could help you or would you rather select to receive drugs and open heart surgery to fix the problem from the root. I am aware that there are many cases when patients decided to participate in an extremely dangerous procedure and eventually end up passing away due to the procedure, any possible solution in life has its own side effects, but what we need to see is what is the most effective.
Lastly, the argument mentioned the cost of these invasive procedures and dangerous drug treatments, how it is a potential factor leading to the rising cost of United States health care. I believe this statement is simply ridiculous. Health care in the any particular country is to help the country's citizen fight through diseases by any means necessary, and as I mentioned before, invasive procedures and dangerous drug treatments may very well be the best possible way for patients to receive a partial or complete cure. If I were a dying patient, I solemnly believe that I would choose to receive treatment through potentially harmful surgeries that have proven to be effective than some type of art or music therapy that don't even have any proven records but simply an understanding.
One way to improve the argument and make the argument more logically sound is to show some records of actual effectiveness of low-cost treatments and therapies such as in the form of art or music. The one reason I believe the argument is flawed is the fact the opening sentence states that people simply "understood" that art and music may have therapeutic effects. If the argument pertains certain statistical evidence that shows how effective art and music therapy can be, it would definitely strengthen the argument.
Overall, I believe the argument is clearly flawed, the underlying assumption of doctors focusing on expensive procedures rather than low-cost treatments such art and music therapy is not very strong because of the fact that low-cost treatments are not treatments that are proven by the medical society, and at the same time, although procedures may seem expensive and at times extremely risky, they have been proven through history and may possibly be the best method to save a life.
