Lawyer: In a risky surgical procedure that is performed only with the patient's informed consent, doctors intentionally cause the patient's heart and brain functions to stop by drastically reducing the patient's body temperature.
Conclusion
If life functions don't resume following the procedure (in which the heart and brain functions are stopped by drastically reducing patient's body temp), the medical team is technically guilty of manslaughter.
Evidence
The doctors are deliberately stopping the patient's life functions.
Evaluate
There is definitely some cognitive dissonance in agreeing with this argument --- the patients have always given informed consent when this procedure is done, but we're still going to find the medical team guilty of manslaughter if the procedure goes awry?
It helps, maybe, that the conclusion is just saying the medical team is technically guilty of manslaughter. We're not morally blaming them (the patient wanted them to try this), but the fact that they deliberately stopped life functions and life functions didn't resume apparently fits the technical definition of manslaughter.
Goal
We just want a rule that would apply to a medical team doing this test, and that would output the idea that "this is technically manslaughter". Something like,
deliberately stop someone's life → manslaughter functions and those don't resume