It’s dishonest to refer to the Charlie Gard case as an instance of healthcare rationing. Doctors refused (experimental, zero-chance) treatment for purely medical reasons: it wasn’t the best thing for the baby. The resulting court case was over the question of whether doctors are required to (a) act in accord with the best interests of the child or (b) do whatever the child’s parents want. The answer turns out to be (a). Financial considerations never entered into the decision. The deciding factor was medical: a series of epileptic seizures which reduced the chance of a successful outcome to ~0. It isn’t ethical to torture a baby with ineffectual treatments just because the parents are (understandably) not ready to accept that the baby is going to die.