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 author's belief that art and music have therapeutic effects for individuals suffering from either physical or mental illness is ridiculously flawed since he fails to support his assertion with any evidence. Although it may be acknowledged that today treatments focus on costly drugs and expensive invasive procedures, there is no proof that cheaper alternatives are effective. The author's conclusion that doctors are doing a disservice to the patients by following expensive procedures is based on a mistaken assumption.
Firstly, the author fails to establish the extent to which music or art is therapeutic for patients. It may be psychologically therapeutic but to consider it an alternative to medicine is foolish. Moreover, the author maybe mistaking correlation as causation. The author should have supported his assertion with examples or data. There might be a possibility that some patients might find music delusional or depressing which prevents the doctors from recommending it. By equating physical illness with mental illness, the author makes an erroneous assumption. The author does not consider the potential ramification that music might have on mental patients as compared to patients with physical illness.
Secondly, the author fails to take into consideration the seriousness of the injury or the survival rates of the disease while asserting that costly drugs or invasive procedures with side effects and high risk are used. He should have strengthened his assertion by showing better alternatives exist and the doctors have overlooked such drugs or procedures. He fails to consider that doctors may have assessed all risk and weighed in all options and finding no better alternative, weighed in on such course of action. For example, a heart attack patient needs to be operated immediately to clear his clogged artery and the procedure might be risky. If the doctor does not operate on him, his death is imminent. Imagine a patient with multi drug resistant TB, he has no other option than availing highly potent therapy which maybe patented, thus costly.
Thirdly to claim that doctors contribute to the rise of cost of healthcare without furnishing any figures or evidence is erroneous .There may be several factors at play. What if the insurance premiums rise because of fewer people subscribing to health insurance? Or the supply of generic drugs is interrupted, leading to prescription of expensive drugs. Or the government raises tax on health insurance or refuses to subsidize healthcare. Several factors can be attributed to the rise of cost associated with healthcare.
Therefore,it has been established that the argument lacks evidence to substantiate the author's claim. To conclude that doctors are manipulating treatment and increasing healthcare costs is fundamentally flawed. The author's conclusion stemming from his premise is faulty and overlooks many important facets.