re. NSAIDs - I think, as has been said already, part of the difference is that they do come with a leaflet explaining the risks, and they are generally used to treat conditions for which they at least do something. It does seem worse if people are given chiropractic adjustments for conditions for which these adjustments do not do any good at all, and are not told of the potentially serious risks.
Perhaps a good analogy would be: imagine if, instead of being used like medicines, NSAIDs are prescribed by voodoo priests (qualified in voodoo, and regulated by a church governing body). These priests see the NSAIDs as a healthy, natural, safe treatment, and do not give their patients any information on risk. They also prescribe NSAIDs for conditions for which they are known to be completely ineffective. Most patients are fine, but occasionally someone is permanently damaged. The governing body tries to avoid publicity on these problems, and defend the reputation of voodoo.
Even though the risks from NSAIDs haven't changed, wouldn't using them this way make their use much more worrying?
Perhaps a good analogy would be: imagine if, instead of being used like medicines, NSAIDs are prescribed by voodoo priests (qualified in voodoo, and regulated by a church governing body). These priests see the NSAIDs as a healthy, natural, safe treatment, and do not give their patients any information on risk. They also prescribe NSAIDs for conditions for which they are known to be completely ineffective. Most patients are fine, but occasionally someone is permanently damaged. The governing body tries to avoid publicity on these problems, and defend the reputation of voodoo.
Even though the risks from NSAIDs haven't changed, wouldn't using them this way make their use much more worrying?