I'd see the choice that the child's life should continue to be maintained as lying wholly within the field of the parents' decision. This is one situation surely where there is indeed a "right of choice", which is being denied.

It's not even a question of deciding that the medical authorities cannot justify continuing to devote resources, since alternative care providers have been identified. It is about the state believing that it has the right to take over the parents' duties - and though there are cases where that can be justified, such as parental abuse, it has not been suggested that anything analogous to that applies in this case.