I don't think anything has changed. The press articles stated that if this child's life support was turned off it would be the first time that a court had ruled in favour of switching off life support to a child who did not have brain damage. In the end, the court didn't rule, the father changed his mind and withdrew his opposition to having the ventalation withdrawn. so nothing has changed. Presumably this isn't the first time that life support for a non brain damaged child has been switched off, but presumably in past cases the parents have agreed to it? IMO it would be more useful to try to establish how many of these cases have been to court and how many times the court have ruled against withdrawing life support, rather than focusing on one case.
I also don't think it's possible to consider every case, or evry child to be the same, and that while life is the best thing for most, there are some for whom it may not be.
Things like walking and talking are irelevant in the scheme of things - there are many people who cannot walk or talk and who lead perfectly happy lives. But this child could not even cry, or swallow, or even breathe. He could not have a tracheostomy fitted and therefore could never leave the hospital room he has lived in for the past thirteen months. He is not living - he is being kept alive, and IMO there is a difference.
There is also a difference between a child who has no movement, cannot even open his eyes any more and will never leave hospital and someone like Christopher reeve who, although could not breathe for himself, was still able to function. Equally there is a difference between a child who is alive and severely impaired - no-one would surely agree that killing a child was ok, but we're not talking about killing a child - we're talking about allowing a child to die.