The Charlie case is not comparable - the question discussed by the court is not whether it should pay to keep him alive, but whether it's ethical to, given that

The Charlie case is not comparable - the question discussed by the court is not whether it should pay to keep him alive, but whether it's ethical to, given that he's constantly incurring brain damage and few people in the medical community believe he has any chance of survival at all. The justification used is that of "continued suffering", not cost.