Of course, you know, with absolute moral certainty, exactly what caused the potassium imbalance, eh?
Because, if you are not 100% morally certain, then you really shouldn't be discussing it as though it were a settled fact.
Whether or not the Schindlers chose to argue about the alleged bulimia (perhaps they choose their battles, or were unaware of the allegation) is irrelevant.
Suppose I sued a manufacturer because I received a bunch of lugnuts which were made of inferior metal and would fracture easily, but when a judge examined the lug nuts, he declared that they were just fine. Suppose further that I removed the lugnuts from the wheels of the judge's car and I replaced them with the ones the judge declared to be just fine. Consequently, the wheels fell off the judge's car, he got in an accident, and died.
Could I be prosecuted for murder for deliberatly putting inferior lugnuts on the judge's car? Or could I argue that the court had proven the lugnuts were not inferior and so consequently they could not have been expected to fail?
According the the facts of law, yes, the potassium imbalance was caused by Terri Schiavo's bulimia.
Morally certain? I cannot know that.
By the same token, you argue for the Schindlers as if you know it to be morally true.
Is it truly irrelevant what and when the Schindlers have chosen to argue or propose certain conditions regarding other people? If you are the moral arbiter, could be.