Some issues are being conflated here , and this is a deperately sad case
First we must remember the age ot the person involved, she is13. This is a difficult age in terms of jurisprudence, as a 13 y old person is deemed to have quite a reaonable understanding of their own actions and the consequences thereof. Their opiinion; as was shown by the decision of the court in this instance really does matter, and from what little i know seems to have been pivotal in this case.
Secondly we must consider the duties placed in law on the health and other authorities having concern with the welfare of this very sick person.The relevant bodies have a statutory duty placed upon them to consider the welfare of the child and act accordingly. My understaning here is that the relevant authorities considered that, it may well be in the best interests of Hannah to proceed with medical treatment, after taking legal and medical advice. This was taken before the Courts to be tested and examined. This is where the sensitiivity of the legal system shone through.
Next consider the poor parents, they are having an extremely difficult time dealing with their very sick daughter, who, having heard her on the radio sounds immemsely brave. The courts are there to protect the rights of all parties and did so here
I have seen this happen when my own brother, who was 36 and on a life support machine. No parent wants to see their child die, but at the same time when that child is suffering from a terminal condition they are put in the most awful of dilemnas. My parents never really got over it. That is why the authoroties are there to help and guide, plus also to protect future victims too..
To then conflate this issue with assited suicide in this instance is otiose in my opinion, and unkind too.
Sometimes in life there is no easy answer, as is the case here.
Regards David