That would be because in your post, that caveat came elsewhere. It wasn't actually attached to the claim I quoted.
It's literally the same sentence.
You accuse Silvanus of cutting your post short and literally cut out all but the last few words, you don't even quote a full sentence, and don't engage any of the points being made about a hair transplant always being a medical procedure. What a joke of a person.
If someone responds to something I didn't say, I have no obligation to respond to it. I did not cut his message to a segment that changed the meaning, and Silvanus seems to stand by the choice to respond to what I didn't say, so you can't accuse me of changing the meaning.
I'm spoilering the reply to this, because I think it's secondary to pointing out what you have tried here.
It is more than a little shifty to snip out the very important part of my comment explaining why pregnancy is a medical condition. This is especially inappropriate for you to do given the specific topic of the thread is Arkansas trying to interfere with provision of reproductive rights. Address it, please, rather than dodge it.
You said pregnancy is a medical condition because it has the possibility of cause death or suffering. I agree that doctors are involved for that reason, but I don't think that makes it a medical condition. Smoking can cause death or suffering. Working on road construction can cause death or suffering. The list of things that aren't medical conditions that can lead to injury or death is endless, and includes pregnancy. Hell, playing in the NFL can cause some serious injury, and they keep medical staff on hand for that reason, in case a player does happen to acquire a fresh medical condition, but you wouldn't call playing football itself a medical condition.
Now I have addressed the very important part, and you may continue to bemoan my semantic arguments.
The decision whether to have a hair transplant is up to a patient, because the patient has autonomy. And yes, good cosmetic surgeons should refuse to treat where they believe it not in the patient's best interest: for instance excessive risk of harm for the benefit, or they have good reason to believe that it will fail to deal with the patient's problem. One might point out hair loss can have negative ramifications: image matters. Some people's financial wellbeing depends on their looks. It might adversely affect their relationships, or damage their self-image and self-esteem. This falls under "suffering"; the subjective appreciation of the patient holds weight. The doctor should have a proper rationale to refuse, and that rationale comes from scientific-medical evidence, not personal whim.
"Need" is not the answer you think it is. Few people truly "need" painkillers. So why prescribe them? Why not just leave them writhing in agony? They'll get over it, when their malady goes away ,or if they're unlucky and it's chronic just teach them to cope with it. And we could expand out a lot from there.
Well, that's why in my statement on need, I said "with a broad enough definition of need". I understand that medically justified is much broader than life or death. I agree entirely with you on that.
I think you're applying multiple different standards here. You suggest that "it will be bad for your career" is a medical justification for a treatment, then should that not also be a medical justification for not refusal? That's hardly scientific-medical evidence, if a doctor were to say "I will not perform this shoulder surgery to give you back full range of motion because I don't think you can financially bear 6 weeks out of work." You're trying to maintain a broad, subjective definition of medical, should that also not make reason to refuse equally broad and subjective?