Question

Hello Rabbi Michi,
How are you?
 
I listened this evening to Monday’s lecture. When you spoke about whether Sabbath prohibitions are fully permitted or merely overridden in cases of saving a life, you brought the practical difference people suggest—whether repentance is required or not—and you rejected it completely, rightly so.
It seems to me that one could suggest a practical difference that is close but not identical: whether atonement is needed for Sabbath desecration. Atonement is a concept that relates to the impurity created by a sinful act. If we say it is fully permitted, then there is no problematic act here, no impurity, and no need for atonement. But if we say it is only overridden, then there is a price for that override—the impurity that comes from desecrating the Sabbath—and although you are righteous for having saved a life, and did exactly what needed to be done, and that is what you should do next time as well, still the act remains a desecration of the Sabbath and requires atonement. 
It seems to me that this is almost the very definition of the conceptual inquiry itself.
It seems to me that my point is understandable, but still there is an analogy I always think of in the context of object-status and person-obligation, which I think explains the matter here too. Medicines are not a healthy thing. If a person is ill, Heaven forbid, he must take the medicines that will save his life, but once he recovers we would advise him from now on to take far fewer medicines, cleanse the body, and so on. 
By contrast, if a person ran a red light because he was hurrying urgently to the hospital, since the prohibition against driving through a red light is conventional and arbitrary—problematic in the situation, not problematic in itself, or in other words, on the person rather than on the object.
It seems that this practical difference is valid regarding whether it is permitted or overridden as well.
 
What do you think of this practical difference?
Good night