From the perspective of the family’s lawyer, it’s more advantageous to have a client - the prospective plaintiff in a medical malpractice suit - being kept artificially alive for an indefinite period than a dead one. In the case of death, the monetary score for the family - and attorney at 30% minimum - is limited by the $250,000 cap. But since they can cite a lifetime of expenses related to keeping her on the machines if not allowed to die, they can sue for billions.
Win-win for the lawyer. He gets to point to a pathetic picture of a Jahi hooked to machines and beat the pain and suffering cap. And, of course, the national name recognition doesn’t hurt for future business.
That’s what I’m thinking, since I’ve read that the family illegally gave her food and encouraged her to talk, both against post-op instructions. Are they trying to destroy evidence?