Linking Charlie Gard's case to the NHS is inappropriate, I think. What's really at issue is UK law (and EU human rights laws), which states that the child's interests come first, and does not apparently in practice privilege the parents' interpretation of what that might be. Charlie's doctors have argued that experimental treatment is highly likely to be ineffective, and that since he is probably in considerable pain, it would not be in his best interests to undergo more medical treatment. Personally, I don't know what I think about the latest EU court decision, but the US and Canada have struggled with similar issues re. who has the expertise and authority to turn off life support (doctors versus family; family member versus family member). Point being: this isn't about single payer.