Grieving is a really individual process. It is also highly sensitive and simple words that can devastate one person can be a comfort to another. Some people want to get rid of all their loved one's stuff immediately as they can't bear to look at it. Others cling onto their stuff and can't bear to change anything. Some people can't cope with looking at photos of the deceased, other people find it comforting.
When my dad was in the ITU in December, the doctor who told us he was going to die in an hour if the procedure didn't work was cordial and matter of fact. This minimised distress for me as I would find dealing with other people's display of emotions a burden and would have made me panic. However my brother perceived him as cold and unpleasant (his perception turned out to be right as when he came to tell us the procedure didn't help and he was about to die, I asked a question and he shouted at me).
While my dad howled during this procedure, the staff were laughing and joking outside the curtain. It didn't bother me as seeing everyone behaving normally was a comfort to me. I rationalised this that they are hardened. I also hoped this audible normality might somehow be comforting in some way for my dad. Meanwhile, my brother found it inappropriate and hurtful.
I can't see why some people can't understand, given that everyone responds to grief differently, that Archie's family may find an unplanned death easier to deal with than a choreographed one, to use their word.
It's not what I personally want in that situation, and maybe a minority of people prefer the unknown. But I totally understand that the prospect of knowing that certain, final death is looming must be unbearably harrowing and anxiety provoking, and Archie's family feel they can cope better if it is unplanned. Although some are cynical, I do think they really have found faith in this difficult time (they wouldn't have bothered with the baptisms otherwise, it actually makes them look less Christian that they left it to adulthood/death, so it's not for show) and they are rationalising their bereavement preferences as God's will.
I know and agree that man is keeping Archie alive against nature, but the family probably think this is irrelevant as you could then say all live-sustaining or life-saving treatments are by man rather than God.
Also knowing how sensitive and individualised bereavement is, I don't understand why some people refuse to believe that somebody may have said something that was hurtful to Hollie or other family members during this time, especially the initial time when Hollie said they were "cold" and had no empathy. The doctors/nurses may not have even said or done anything "wrong" per se, just something that was hurtful for her, and may have been fine for someone else. The hero worship is so strong that some people refuse to believe that NHS doctors and nurses are anything other than perfect at all times, including in interpersonal interactions when it is humanly impossible to always get it right. Even more so with the bereaved mother of a hanged child.
Finally I don't understand how anyone who has had any dealings whatsoever as a patient finds it hard to believe the mere possibility that the doctors did not effectively communicate with Archies family when sending him over to the Royal London. There are miscommunications all the time, and as a patient it can make it really hard to navigate getting treatments or referrals.
ITU doctors are busy, and it may have been as simple doctors not realising that Hollie wasn't hearing or processing the part were they said "this may turn out to not be possible".