It's a major issue with laws when they intermingle with medical practice. Laws are kind of like bad computer code. It is written with an intention but that intention is only as good as how good your technical ability to write the code is which also hinges on understanding what all the potentially the factors at play are. Particularly when your law has particularly harsh penalties for misconduct.

Human bodies are complicated and a lot of law regarding operates in the space of "potential". In a court of law in things like self defense cases where you have to defend your actions from persecution by the code have to prove you had no other "potential" avenues to take because if it can be proven you had other choices or there is a chance however small that you overreacted and things theoretically could have turned out fine the law swoops in and leaves you open to prosecution.

But medical stuff is complicated and nuanced in ways the law is not. Law is a rigid computer code. If you have a situation leaves an opening in the law for "cases that are life threatening." and someone does the thing they then leave themselves open to the potential of having to prove that every single other option was exhausted. If someone is stable and not in immediate distress... Even though you know they will be later given predictable odds it becomes a nightmare of leaving more doubt so one tactic is to just wait until things are life threatening... But the problem with life threatening cases is they hold extra damages and risks. If your life is in danger your organs are failing. There is no question the house is burning down when the flames burst through the windows but if you wanted to mitigate the damages putting it out when the candle first tipped over has the best long term results ...

Say a law stipulates that it's only permissible to help in the event the house is "burning down". This means you have to agree in a court room that your definition of "burning down" is in fact a reasonable interpretation of that specific language. One tactic to be safe is you wait until nobody can argue the state of the house. Would you say a little spot of your carpet being on fire is the house "burning down"? It's not good sure but isn't that hyperbole? What constitutes "burning down" anyway? So your carpet burning isn't the house burning down and there's no provision for the the drapes and furniture, or an oil or oven fire... Those are all not causing damage directly to the structure of the house so the house isn't even burning much less "down"... But if you wait the house will catch fire... But is it "burning down"? It's when the structure of your house is in danger of collapsing right? Down still implies a fire where the house is pretty advanced and there isn't much left afterwards right? At what point is the house actually "burning down"? When the structure catches probably isn't burning "down" is it when 25% of the structure ia compromised? If you put out the fire then the house wouldn't be "down" would it? Still a lot of house that is in fact "up". Well 50% is probably a good call right? Oh but then it's only " in imminent danger of burning down" not actively "burning down" ...

Laws like anti abortion laws tend to be created to be big and showy and easy for lay people to read because they are essentially political showboating. Every place with a total abortion ban has shown to be terrible for women's healthcare in exactly this way and none of this outcome was a surprise to the people fighting to keep abortion legal.