The Charlotte Wyatt case

Here is a story, from the BBC, about the latest ruling in the Charlotte Wyatt case:

A severely brain-damaged baby should be allowed to die if she stops breathing, a High Court judge has ruled. 

The parents of 18-month-old Charlotte Wyatt have lost their legal battle to overturn a court order allowing doctors not to resuscitate her. . . .

Passing the ruling [Judge] Hedley said: "I am quite clear that it would not be in Charlotte's best interests to die in the course of futile aggressive treatment."

He said that if she should stop breathing all treatment, except intubation and ventilation, would be in Charlotte's best interests, "but nothing further".

I'm not an expert in these matters, but it seems to me that this case might be different, in morally significant ways, from the Schiavo case.  On the one hand, I'm troubled by the apparent equation, in this news account, between "intubation" (which I assume refers to ANH?) and "ventilation"; on the other hand, it strikes me that to refrain from "aggressive futile treatment" is more like "letting die" than was the ending of nutrition and hydration in Schiavo.  Again, I'm not an expert here, so I'd welcome reactions or corrections.

Rick