I can't speak to medical specifically, but in one of the spaces I used to work the thinking was "The law is ambiguous because it's reactive; we're so far out on the bleeding edge that nobody actually knows what's legal until someone tries it and someone else makes a case of it. So pushing the envelope is a net positive for society because we end up blazing a trail of bright-line precedent rulings that other companies can follow. You can tell the pioneers because they're the ones with the arrows in their backs."

A bit self-serving but there's some meat on the bones of that logic; the real meaning of the law is path-dependent and determined by the rulings, not the words on the paper.