Roni commented to a previous post - I am making it a separate post & moved other comments
Lean"d regarding 2 (and then 3), it is clear lefu, rihatoh that at best the C is applicable:
I have to check all M"M; but lefm ruhatoh it is barur, that there are two cases of refuah. a) where there is no sakanah whatsoever, b) where there is chashash sakonoh, especially if it is a safek or sfek sakanah.
It would appear clearly, that whereever there is a sakanah or safek sakanah, that we have an issue of pikuach nefesh! where it is much more than avedat gufoy!
The m"m that you cite are mostly for a) cases where there is no sakanat nefashot. A proof for that is: that at the beggining of YD 336 it says (after it states that it is reshut, it adds that it is ) Mitzvah "ubichlal pikuach nefesh!". It seems pashut that pikuach nefesh does not require the parsha and obligation of of "hashvat aveda"; it is a chiyuv on it's own.
It would appear that the reference that are cited later in the posskim (or the rishonim) refer to a situation where there is clearly no sakanat nefashot; there it is under the parsha of "hashavat gufoy"; but if it is akin to "roeh chaveroy toveah bayam..." or nochrim having a bad thought on a Jew (CM 426) then it falls under "loy taamod al dam reecho" and if it is a case of sakanat nefashot it falls under pikuach nefesh.
Wrt to three: It seems clear that there is an additional obligation of "atrichoy veoygureh" (to add tircha and hire experts) that is not under the general obgliation of a regular "hashavat gufoy".
the question will have to be analyzed what is the geder of molestation: "pikuach nefesh" sakanat nefesh or just "hashvat gufoy" (I would tend to a go with the former. But let's hear the discussion on it).
Regarding Chemdat Shlomoh. I don't have the mareh mekomot in my mind now, but I remember a LOT OF ACHRONIM MATMIHA ON THIS PATICULAR CHEMDAT SHLOMOH and disagreeing harshly with him.