So you presume to comprehend what is human and what is inhuman? That is the sort of discretion governments should not have. You're conflating rights with duties. The government has no duty to prevent Charlie from suffering, they have a duty to not cause that suffering without due process of the law. You don't have the right NOT to suffer, nor does Charlie. You have the right to pursue life and liberty that affects the manner in which you suffer.

The decision to remove life support should belong with the family alone, for better or worse. Physicians should serve their clients as governments should serve citizens. Such service should never include the decision to remove life support unless by some unlucky turn the patient is a ward of the government. Would you consider it inhuman for me to do everything in my power to keep you alive, even if the likelihood was next to none and I was causing you some immeasurable amount of pain? Once you've answered that question, I'd like to point out the next item you should consider. That being, you're opinion is simply that and it should not have any impact at all upon the care Charlie receives. Your current line of reasoning would allow the government to decided when it would be "most human" to take anyone off life support.

I say this with no malice or ill will: you're coming across as arrogant and as though you have the insight required to make life and death decisions for other peoples' children. If you think that your insight allows you to have a say over the loved one of another, that's where you become wrong and egotistical. Please consider the difference between duties and rights. They are very different. You have no right over anyone other than yourself and your children, until they become adults or you behave criminally around them.