How could someone be so heartless as to condone this act of pure evil?

It is very sad and not a decision that was made lightly, I'm sure.

You entirely missed the point of the reference to Hawking. Someone used the loss of autonomic and voluntary muscle control as THE criteria for brain death. I pointed out that many others like Hawking have lost those capabilities and are quit mentally adept.

As to this poor little pup . . . probably now way to know the long-term potential of his brain functionality at this point, if he were allowed by the NHS and the hospital bean-counters to live. I even doubt that a rudimentary EEG has been done to establish a baseline at this point. 

I just listened to the latest news on this.  The judges have asked for more time to determine whether the treatment proposed will actually make a difference to this child.  The doctors have said the he is brain damaged, he is blind, he is deaf, he cannot move any of his muscles and cannot breathe on his own.  The proposed treatment will not cure him, so what kind of an existence are the parents condemning this child to for however long he lives? 

Yeah, right. Charlie Gard has been kept alive by the NHS, and the decision to take him to the US is based around the likelihood of success. It is difficult moving someone who has to be kept alive by machines, quite apart from any other considerations. The USA, foolishly, will not embrace what you call "socialised" health care, and comes last out of the top eleven developed countries for health care. Guess who is top.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uks-healthcare-ranked-the-best-out-of-11-western-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html

None of that is the point.  It doesn't matter what the likelihood of success in America might be unless the UK government is footing the bill for the trip and treatment over here.  The point is parents have the right to pick up their child and walk out of the hospital and get on a plane to OZ if they wish.  It is none of your business, my business, or the government's business.  Just the parents. 

It isn't the government which was asked to make the decision on this. It was the court, and the court is supposed to be impartial. That goes for both America and Britain. The culture of the NHS is always about patient choice, and people always have the option of private health care, if they can afford it. In this case, it seems Charlie's parents had the funds to take him to the USA, but the hospital objected, on the grounds that they felt it was only prolonging Charlie's suffering; also, moving someone who needs a lot of equipment to keep them alive is not easy.

Wait, what?

The Courts are not part of the government in the UK? What's up with that? And what was the reason that made it necessary to "ask" the Courts to begin with? Sounds like someone in power said no when the couple wanted to transport their child to the USA. Otherwise why would the Courts need to be involved to begin with?