The abstract also says that " Furthermore the mortality statistics do not include deaths ascribed to the use of over-the-counter NSAIDS."

Aspirin is an OTC and thus excluded from those mortality statistics.

Additionally most of those deaths were from elderly people who suffer from arthritis and are taking NSAIDs daily and longterm.

Overall that is a very misleading headline.

Not trying to be mean, but why does it matter if you think it's worth it? It's my choice. If I choose a small percent chance of dying for some relief it's my choice.

It's just an opinion.

Plenty of people don't think the added safety of seat belts is worth it, the minor fine related to not using them seems like a tiny risk in comparison to dismemberment or death. However, many of those same people fear the fine more than physical harm which seems silly to me. Perhaps, if I was more empathetic I would 'get it', but I don't run things so I don't really feel the need to.

So that post just got several down posts. Why? I can get someone having a different utility function, but why do you care what my utility function is? Is it the fear of seeming foolish? It's like someone getting angry that I don't care about gold, yea it's shinny and yellow, but that's about it. Does that harm you?

Note: I am suggesting that the law needs to change or anything, just that I don't understand why people think in that fashion.