[MRM]

This question was resolved in the law many years ago. Around the time Karen Ann Quinlan went into a vegetative state but survived on a respirator, the courts had to struggle with the issue of when someone was dead or alive and the advances of medical technology. Eventually the courts resolved the question of when someone "dies" through brain function. A person isn't considered dead unless they're brain dead, even if the body can be sustained by a machine, or even breaths and pumps blood on its own. When the brain stem is permanently broken, the person is legally dead, even if the body keeps functioning. That's why they could deny Terri Schiavo food and water until her body ceased to function. Her brain stem was dead. She had no brain function but enough of her unconscious neurological system remained intact for her to keep breathing and her heart pumping on her own. She was already "dead" so it was permissible to stop supporting the body's functions. Interestingly, it is not allowed to take affirmative action to end the physical life of someone who is brain dead. It is only allowed to take passive steps and deny the person food and water until the body "dies".

Anyway, the prisoner didn't have anything to lose by trying his novel argument (he has a lot of time on his hands) so it makes sense he would at least try it. But the issue was really resolved a long time ago against his argument. Dead means permanent brain dead, not temporary heart dead.