Introduction
Anxiety leads to feelings of worry, fear and concern in people, thus hindering them from enjoying their lives. According to Dr. Archibald D. Hart, people should avoid panic, stress and anxiety. This way, they will live a life of tranquility. Anxiety naturally occurs to people, robbing them off their happiness and stability (Hawkins, 2007). When an individual is experiencing stress, the sad neurotransmitters dominate over the happy ones, rendering an individual full of negative emotional responses (Hawkins, 2007).
Therefore, biology and psychology are related. Thus, treating a patient calls for a combination of both aspects. In addition, Christian mediation is fundamental in granting an individual mind stability and tranquility (Hawkins, 2007). The above arguments by Dr. Archibald D. Hart are plausible, and thus acceptable.
Dr. Hart’s arguments on Anxiety Cure
Dr. Archibald D. Hart presents numerous techniques, which can be applied by an individual patient to overcome anxiety and its effects. He also establishes relevant harmonization of personal techniques and therapy. This conjunction helps a patient to recover fully (Hawkins, 2007). However, presenting such techniques to patients and at the same time requiring them to understand the neurotic aspects involved makes the whole issue complex for them.
Therefore, the role of understanding neurological biology should be left to psychiatrists and physicians, leaving patients with the role of understanding their emotional and psychological feelings (Hawkins, 2007). This will allow patients to undergo mediation easily, and come up with the root cause of their anxiety (Hawkins, 2007). This way, treating patients becomes simple, since the cause of their condition is apparent.
Criticism of Anxiety Cure
However, for the critics of the Anxiety Cure, there are some assertions by Dr. Hart that are not agreeable. According to him, a client or a counselor needs to understand how the biological system of neurotransmitters work, in addition to understanding how the medication administered to a patient works. According to him, this knowledge is vital, to elicit the relationship between biology and psychology.
Having this knowledge enables a counselor to address a patient’s condition and restore their full health (Hawkins, 2007). According to the critics, it is not necessary to understand neurological and medication biology, since such assertions make Anxiety cure complicated. This can hinder its understanding by people, rendering it ineffective and unable to fulfill its objectives. Therefore, Anxiety Cure is credible, but the requirements to understand the neurological biology are unnecessary (Hawkins, 2007).
Another weakness in Dr. Hart’s theory of anxiety cure arises from his view regarding the role of medication to a patient’s health. According to him, medication plays a vital role in restoring a patient’s health. While this is true, his affirmation on the role of medication in restoring mental health is questionable. Therapy is more effective in restoring mental health, as opposed to medication (Hawkins, 2007).
This is because; mental health is a component of emotional and psychological status, which are not curable through medication (Hawkins, 2007). Therefore, Dr. Hart should have stressed on the role of therapy and Christian mediation in curing mental disorders, at the expense of medication (Hawkins, 2007). Additionally, although medication could be helpful, it is apparent that it cannot be used to cure neurotic behaviors and thoughts (Hawkins, 2007). Medication can provide temporary stability, but if not reinforced with therapy, it does not provide a permanent solution (Hawkins, 2007). Thus, Dr. Hart needed to emphasize the role of therapy in curing anxiety.
Reference
Hawkins, R. (2007). The anxiety cure: The contribution of Archibald Hart. Lynchburg, VA: Liberty University.