Yes - fuelled by social media....
However the point still stands that in the most recent cases the result has been the same, which was to uphold the recommendations of the medical professionals acting in the patient's best interests.
As more of these cases are won/lost (depending on your perspective) it helps serve the narrative that hospitals only seek consent from the courts to withdraw treatment when there is a dispute in the cases they know the medical evidence is overwhelmingly in their favour.
Theoretically this should reduce the number of cases before the courts (and probably does) but you still cannot count against organisations like the CLC "cherry picking" cases they think might set legal precedents (such as a beating heart equals life and that having an impact on abortion rights) and also parents who in conjunction are manipulated by such organisations or through their own "anti establishment" stance (plus any other reason) pursue this course of action.
Which is exactly why when it does happen it's important that the family have been able to exhaust every legal avenue open to them and for the reasons why their case was not upheld to be in the public domain.