EMB-175 flight crew reported misuse of intent of deferred maintenance of the Number 2 engine starter valve through MEL.

Narrative

I served as First Officer from ZZZ-ZZZ1 on Aircraft X. Upon pulling up the release that morning for the flight; I found the MEL; for the number 2 engine starter valve. I researched this MEL and found the procedure to be quite simple; we just needed to enhance communication with the ground personnel and also with contract maintenance. The Captain and I reviewed both the MEL and CFM procedure once we briefed for the flight and spoke with rampers and contract maintenance on how we would conduct the start for engine 2 at the gate. The start went off without a hitch and we completed the flight without issue.I felt compelled to submit this report after the flight after conferring with colleagues and taking a more detailed look at the aircraft maintenance log. The AML shows a repeated history of issues with the number 2 engine on that airplane. The flight I completed in this airplane was legal and nothing went wrong but I wanted to bring my observations to the attention of people who can actually do something about it. From what I gathered combing through the AML after the flight:Day 0: Engine 2 boroscope failDay 2: Engine 2 replacementDay 3: Engine leak on engine 2 (written up by maintenance)Day 3: Engine 2 T2 sensor fail (written up by maintenance)Day 5: Engine 2 no rotation-->Engine 2 start valve MELdDay 6: Engine 2 start valve MEL clearedDay 7: Engine 2 fail to start-->Engine 2 start valve MELdDay 9: Engine 2 start valve MEL clearedDay 9: Engine 2 no rotation-->Engine 2 start valve MELd *Day 13: Engine 2 start valve MEL clearedDay 16: Engine 2 start valve won't open-->Engine 2 start valve MELdDay 17: Engine 2 thrust reverser fail-->Thrust reverser MELdDay 19: Engine 2 thrust reverser MEL clearedDay 19: Engine 2 start valve MEL clearedDay 19: Engine 2 no rotation--->Engine start valve MELd *There are some things I want to point out:There were multiple instances where the airplane was 'fixed' after the MEL for engine 2 start valve was cleared and the very next flight it was written up again for the same recurring issue. This is indicated by an asterisk* above. This obviously points to a deeper issue with engine 2 that is not being rectified properly. Other than the cycle of constantly MELing then clearing the MEL (which is not in the spirit of deferred maintenance); this issue also affects safety of flight in another manner. The restart envelope for the engine if an engine failure were to occur is many thousands of feet lower than where we usually fly. The windmill restart envelope extends only up to FL250. This airplane flies everywhere in our system; including over mountainous terrain to places like ZZZ2; ZZZ3; ZZZ4; and others where mountains extend high above sea level. Sending an airplane like Aircraft X to these places is irresponsible given its history and the lower altitude at which an engine restart can be accomplished given the closer proximity to terrain.FYI I could not find the correct tail number for this event. It is Aircraft X but I didn't see it so I selected a random tail.Suggestions: I believe that this airplane should not in good conscience be flying on the line given these repeated instances. I would be amiss if I didn't mention the current state of the industry and our public perception--this engine could be the next headline and no one wants that. I urge maintenance to take this airplane out of service for an extended time and perform test flights to ensure this issue has been rectified.The process of MELing; then clearing within the 10 days only to MEL right away again is really a bad cycle and it should not be like this.