Is this some sort of definition game? I'm using illness to mean "an unhealthy condition of body or mind", and treat as "to do something to improve the condition of an ill or injured person", both dictionary definitions. If you really can't think of anything that drug stores sell without prescription that qualifies, maybe try taking a stroll down the aisles sometime.

I’m saying it doesn’t map to “right to repair.” A mild anti inflammatory medicine to relieve mild headaches - ok great. But that’s not a repair of any sort. An antibiotic cures an actual illness - something that requires repair.

As I said pretty clearly I’m not saying this is right for the individual of the world, but a right to repair yourself would allow open access to medication at the lowest prices an open market can bear and medical knowledge offered a broadly accessible way for most conditions not absolutely requiring a specialist, like most surgeries or complex interventions. The amount residual is probably a lot larger than you would believe. In fact almost all medical services are routine and don’t require a specialist of any sort, not even a PA. Again, I’m framing the concept of right to repair your own body not taking a stance on whether it’s a good idea or not.

Id note in closing that in a discussion of the definition of right to repair, it’s an odd question to pose “is this a definition game?” Yes - that is the topic!

You are making up your own definition for "illness" here, so you can cherry-pick.

The whole notion of "repair" in relation to bodies doesn't make much sense. Bodies self-repair. All medicine is just aiding them in that.

And if you're not saying this is right for the individual or the world, I don't understand why either of us should waste further time on what appears to be just a game, the part of "definition game" you somehow managed to ignore even while quoting it.