A distinction is made between permissible and unacceptable.

Hello Rabbi Michi
How are you?
I heard Monday’s lesson tonight. When you talked about Shabbat being permitted or postponed by the Pikuach Nefesh, you brought up the issue of whether or not a reply is needed, and you rejected it completely, and rightly so.
It seems to me that a similar but not identical question can be offered – is atonement necessary for desecrating the Sabbath? Atonement is a concept that refers to the impurity that arises from an act of transgression. If we say “permissible,” there is no problematic act here, there is no impurity and no need for atonement. But if we say only “rejection,” then there is a price for rejection, the impurity that arises from desecrating the Sabbath, and even though you are righteous because you saved a soul, and did exactly what should have been done, and will do so next time, with all of this the act is still desecrating the Sabbath and requires atonement.
It seems to me that this is almost the very definition of the investigation.
I think my concern is understandable, and yet there is a parable that I always think of in the context of Haftza and Gabra that I think explains the matter here as well. Medication is unhealthy. A sick person is not our responsibility, he must take the medication that will save his life, but when he gets better we will suggest that he take much less medication from now on, cleanse his body, etc.
On the other hand, if a person ran a red light because he was in a hurry to get to the hospital, since the prohibition on driving through a red light is arbitrary, problematic by chance and not problematic in essence, or in other words – by necessity and not by choice.
It seems that this same principle is also true in the case of a permissible or rejected cough.

What do you think about this type of product?
Good night