Its not the state but his Doctors,and as a doctor you have a duty of care for your patient,and that must come first.
I can understand the parents point of view,but if the Doctors think their is no hope,and it very much seem it in this case,they must at some point come to an decision about the poor baby care,and quality of life.
It's not the social services saying this, it's world class specialist doctors. Not just ones from GOSH either.
And again, you're putting what the parents want ahead of what has been decided as best for Charlie. They're not in a position to be rational about it.
This is also not about money. The parents have raised enough for him to be treated, and GOSH did consider early this year whether the treatment would be helpful before Charlie deteriorated drastically.
EDIT:
It's also debatable whether letting the parents clutch at any straw, whether it's American treatment, Trump/the pope/Italian hospitals adding their tuppence worth, etc, is doing them any good
If they had been entirely self funding throughout their sons treatment I can see your point, however, they have not they engaged fully and consented to NHS treatment.It's far to easy to condemn the NHS/state, however, there will be expert medical professionals behind the decision who have worked closely with Charlie and his parents,it would not have been an easy decision for them to challenge the parents, a very difficult situation.
Trumps intervention has not been helpful.
And in your mind, the doctors duty of care includes turning off the life support system?
Unfortunately it is the state now. The doctors advise was supported in court. So if the parents go against this .... well you know the consequences... 
If that duty of care of the doctors believe that the best interest of this case,is switching of the life support system,then yes.
Its was the parents who brought in the state,not the doctors,they will have been advised at some point that they made lose the case.
Its very sad all round,but it seem most of the medical opinion on which the courts decided was that, switching of the life support would in this case be in the best interest of this poor baby.
Not me, but my brother & sister in law where in a very similar situation as Charlie's parents. My nephew who was a few weeks old at the time was diagnosed with an extremely rare form of brain tumour. He was treated for 8 months or so including having quite a few ops, his parents where told there was nothing further could be done in this country, there was however a specialist in the US who could operate but there was very little chance it would work (I think it was way less than 1%).My brother & sister in law done a lot of soul searching but decided in the end that they would take my nephew home to pass away peacefully, it was the most heart breaking decision I've ever witnessed by anyone in my whole life and feel sorry for Charlie's parents.
The use of state sanctioned law in what is a 'Moral dilemma', this doesn't sit well with me, the child ultimately belongs to the parents, although there is a clear conflict of interest between the different parties. No easy answer.
There's no easy answer and while I think that GOSH are right, a couple of comments here have made me think it over again.
Charlie does not belong to his parents though. While they have an important role, they do not have unconditional final rights. He is a person with his own needs
The latter part of your post could be argued philosophically, but this thread is neither the time or the place.
Why isn't it? Seems to me it's at the heart of all this, who has final say.
This sums it up nicely: "It boils down to this: children are not items of property that parents are free to do with as they please. Both the doctors and the courts are of the belief that this treatment would do nothing more than prolong Charlie's suffering, which is not in his best interests. The parents wishes would have him used as a guinea pig for an untested treatment that has no possibility of reversing the damage that has effectively already killed him (and makes no claims of being able to)."